Background: Cutaneous drug eruptions are a significant source of morbidity, mortality, and cost to the healthcare system. Identifying the culprit drug is essential; however, despite numerous methods being published, there are no consensus guidelines. Objectives: Conduct a scoping review to identify all published methods of culprit drug identification for cutaneous drug eruptions, compare the methods, and generate hypotheses for future causality assessment studies. Eligibility criteria: Peer-reviewed publications involving culprit drug identification methods. Sources of evidence: Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Charting methods: Registered PRISMA-ScR format protocol on Open Science Forum. Results: In total, 135 publications were included comprising 656,635 adverse drug events, most of which were cutaneous. There were 54 methods of culprit drug identification published, categorized as algorithms, probabilistic approaches, and expert judgment. Algorithms had higher sensitivity and positive predictive value, but lower specificity and negative predictive value. Probabilistic approaches had lower sensitivity and positive predictive value, but higher specificity and negative predictive value. Expert judgment was subjective, less reproducible, but the most frequently used to validate other methods. Studies suggest that greater accuracy may be achieved by specifically assessing cutaneous drug eruptions and using combinations of causality assessment categories. Conclusions: Culprit drug identification for adverse drug reactions remains a challenge. Many methods have been published, but there are no consensus guidelines. Using causality assessment methods specifically for cutaneous drug eruptions and combining aspects of the different causality assessment categories may improve efficacy. Further studies are needed to validate this hypothesis.

Background: Despite growing emphasis on empathic care, numerous studies demonstrate diminishing empathy in medical students. Involving patient educators in medical curricula may be a solution. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review to evaluate patient-involved interventions that promote empathy among medical students.  Method: A literature search of MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and ERIC databases was performed using the keywords “empathy,” “medical student,” and their synonyms. Results were independently screened in duplicate. Conflicts were resolved by group consensus. All English studies describing interventions that promote empathy in medical students engaging patient educators were included. Relevant data was extracted and summarized. Results: 1467 studies were screened. 14 studies were included, of which 10 were pilot studies. Studies included patient involved interventions such as storytelling (5/14), shadowing patients (3/14), recorded videos (3/14), or combinations of methods (3/14). Qualitative measurements of empathy included written feedback and group discussions. Quantitative measurements included validated scales measuring empathy. All studies demonstrated increase in empathy among medical students. Participants reported satisfaction with training and patients reported being proud of giving back by training future physicians. Conclusion: Interventions engaging patient educators were shown to have a positive impact on medical student empathy. Furthermore, patient-led education was shown to increase medical student understanding of subject and knowledge retention while empowering patients. Further implementation of patient-involved education is an important step forward in patient-partnered care and may identify additional advantages of patient engagement in medical education.

Background 3D printing (3DP) has gained interest in many fields of medicine including cardiology, plastic surgery, and urology due to its versatility, convenience, and low cost. However, critical care medicine, which is abundant with high acuity yet infrequent procedures, has not embraced 3DP as much as others. The discrepancy between the possible training or therapeutic uses of 3DP in critical care and what is currently utilized in other fields needs to be addressed. Objective This narrative literature review describes the uses of 3DP in critical care that have been documented. It also discusses possible future directions based on recent technological advances. Methods A literature search on PubMed was performed using keywords and Mesh terms for 3DP, critical care, and critical care skills. Results Our search found that 3DP use in critical care fell under the major categories of medical education (23 papers), patient care (4 papers) and clinical equipment modification (4 papers). Medical education showed the use of 3DP in bronchoscopy, congenital heart disease, cricothyroidotomy, and medical imaging. On the other hand, patient care papers discussed 3DP use in wound care, personalized splints, and patient monitoring. Clinical equipment modification papers reported the use of 3DP to modify stethoscopes and laryngoscopes to improve their performance. Notably, we found that only 13 of the 31 papers were directly produced or studied by critical care physicians. Conclusion The papers discussed provide examples of the possible utilities of 3DP in critical care. The relative scarcity of papers produced by critical care physicians may indicate barriers to 3DP implementation. However, technological advances such as point-of-care 3DP tools and the increased demand for 3DP during the recent COVID-19 pandemic may change 3DP implementation across the critical care field.

Background Cutaneous drug eruptions are a significant source of morbidity, mortality, and cost to the healthcare system. Identifying the culprit drug is essential; however, despite numerous methods being published, there are no consensus guidelines. Objectives Conduct a scoping review to identify all published methods of culprit drug identification for cutaneous drug eruptions, compare the methods, and generate hypotheses for future causality assessment studies. Eligibility criteria Peer-reviewed publications involving culprit drug identification methods. Sources of evidence Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Charting methods Registered PRISMA-ScR format protocol on Open Science Forum. Results In total, 109 studies and 26 reviews were included comprising 656,635 adverse drug events, most of which were cutaneous. There were 54 methods of culprit drug identification published, categorized as algorithms, probabilistic approaches, and expert judgment. Algorithms had higher sensitivity and positive predictive value, but lower specificity and negative predictive value. Probabilistic approaches had lower sensitivity and positive predictive value, but higher specificity and negative predictive value. Expert judgment was subjective, less reproducible, but the most frequently used to validate other methods. Studies suggest that greater accuracy may be achieved by specifically assessing cutaneous drug eruptions and using combinations of causality assessment categories. Conclusions Culprit drug identification for adverse drug reactions remains a challenge. Many methods have been published, but there are no consensus guidelines. Using causality assessment methods specifically for cutaneous drug eruptions and combining aspects of the different causality assessment categories may improve efficacy. Further studies are needed to validate this hypothesis.

No abstract

Background Identification of culprit drugs when managing cutaneous drug eruptions is essential. Causality assessment methods (CAMs) have been proposed, including lab-based techniques. However, no consensus guidelines exist. Objectives To identify and map the functionality and feasibility of lab-based CAMs. Methods A scoping review was conducted to identify culprit drug identification methods. Publications on lab-based methods were analyzed. Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases were searched. Results Twenty-five publications met inclusion criteria. Nine lab-based CAMs were studied, including lymphocyte transformation test, cytokine measurement (ELISpot, ELISA, beads array assay), modified IFN-ɣ ELISpot, CellScan, histamine release, granzyme B-ELISpot, intracellular granulysin, lymphocyte toxicity assay, and HLA allele genotyping. Diagnostic accuracy was reported for 8/9 methods. Clinical assessment and operational algorithms were commonly used as validation benchmarks. Lab-based methods were assessed at different phases of a drug eruption including in the acute (18.1%), recovery (27.3%), acute and recovery (27.3%), or an unspecified phase (27.3%). Lymphocyte transformation test (specificity 30% to 100%, sensitivity 27% to 73%) and cytokine measurement (specificity 76% to 100%, sensitivity 20% to 84%) were the most common methods studied. Conclusions Lab-based CAMs can be low-risk, effective, and complementary of clinical methods. High-quality studies are needed to adequately develop and validate these tools for clinical practice.

No abstract