Background Objective Structured Clinical Examinations (OSCEs) are a common form of assessment used across medical schools in the UK to assess clinical competence and practical skills and are traditionally held in an in-person format. In the past, medical students have often prepared for such exams through in-person peer-assisted learning (PAL), however, due to the recent Covid-19 pandemic, many in-person teaching sessions transitioned to online-based formats. There is currently a paucity of research on the utility of virtual PAL OSCE sessions and thus, we carried out a national pilot study to determine the feasibility of virtual OSCE teaching via feedback from participants and examiners. Methods A total of 85 students from 19 UK-based medical schools with eight students based internationally attended the series of online OSCE workshops delivered via Zoom®. All students and examiners completed a feedback questionnaire at the end of each session regarding parameters, which included questions on pre-and post-workshop confidence in three OSCE domains: history-taking, communication and data interpretation. A Likert scale using 5 Likert items was used to self-report confidence, and the results were analysed using the Mann-Whitney U test after assessing for normality using the Shapiro-Wilk test. Results Results from student feedback showed an increase in confidence for all three OSCE domains after each event (p < 0.001) with 69.4% agreeing or strongly agreeing that online OSCE sessions could sufficiently prepare them for in-person exams. Questionnaire feedback revealed that 97.6% of students and 86.7% of examiners agreed that virtual OSCE teaching would be useful for preparing for in-person OSCE examinations after the pandemic. Conclusion Most participants in the virtual OSCE sessions reported an improvement in their confidence in history-taking, communication and data interpretation skills. Of the participants and examiners that had also experienced in-person OSCE examinations, the majority also reported that they found virtual OSCE sessions to be as engaging and as interactive as in-person teaching. This study has demonstrated that virtual OSCE workshops are a feasible option with the potential to be beneficial beyond the pandemic. However, more studies are required to assess the overall impact on student learning and to determine the value of virtual OSCE workshops on exam performance.

Purpose This systematic review and meta-analysis directly compares joint replacement (JR) and trapeziectomy techniques to provide an update as to which surgical intervention is superior for first carpometacarpal (CMC-1) joint osteoarthritis. Methods In August 2020, MEDLINE, Embase and Web of Science were searched for eligible studies that compared these two techniques for the treatment of CMC-1 joint osteoarthritis (PROSPERO registration ID: CRD42020189728). Primary outcomes included the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH), QuickDASH (QDASH) and pain visual analogue scale (VAS) scores. Secondary outcomes, such as total complication, dislocation and revision surgery rates, were also measured. Results From 1909 studies identified, 14 studies (1005 patients) were eligible. Our meta-analysis found that post-operative QDASH scores were lower for patients in the JR group (five studies, p = 0.0004). Similarly, significantly better postoperative key pinch strength in favour of JR was noted (three studies, p = 0.001). However, pain (VAS) scores were similar between the two groups (five studies, p = 0.21). Moreover, JR techniques had significantly greater odds of overall complications (12 studies; OR 2.12; 95% CI 1.13–3.96, p = 0.02) and significantly greater odds of revision surgery (9 studies; OR 5.14; 95% CI 2.06–12.81, p = 0.0004). Conclusion Overall, based on very low- to moderate-quality evidence, JR treatments may result in better function with less disability with comparable pain (VAS) scores; however, JR has greater odds of complications and greater odds of requiring revision surgery. More robust RCTs that compare JR and TRAP with standardised outcome measures and long-term follow-up would add to the overall quality of evidence.

Purpose Neovascular glaucoma (NVG) is characterised by neovascularisation of the angle and therefore elevated intraocular pressure (IOP). This results in progressive optic neuropathy and loss of visual acuity. Treatment aims to reduce IOP in order to prevent optic nerve damage. A systematic review was completed synthesising results from randomised control trials (RCTs) comparing interventions for the management of NVG and their efficacy and safety. Methods Data was sourced from Web of Science, Embase and Medline after 1st January 2000. The primary outcome measures were mean IOP at follow-up and success rate. The secondary outcomes included mean IOP lowering medications and total complications. A meta-analysis was completed on comparative studies using Revman (version 5.4). Results For the two studies comparing Ahmed glaucoma valve (AGV) + pan-retinal photocoagulation (PRP) vs AGV + PRP + intra-vitreal bevacizumab (IVB), there was no difference in mean IOP or odds of success from the meta-analysis. From the 4 studies examining the utilisation of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF), one study showed lower mean IOP at 1 (p = 0.002) and 3 months (p = 0.033) for IVB vs sham injection. In the 2 studies studying transcleral diode laser (TDL), there were no significant findings. From the 4 studies looking at trabeculectomy (trab), lower mean IOP at 6 (p = 0.001), 9 (p = 0.01), 12 (p = 0.02) and 18 months (p = 0.004) was shown for intra-vitreal ranibizumab (IVR) + PRP + visco-trabeculectomy vs IVR + PRP + trab, and a significantly lower mean IOP was present in the Baerveldt group vs trab at 6 months (p = 0.03). In the 2 studies investigating the AGV, there was a lower mean IOP at 1 month (p = 0.01) in the AGV + triamcinolone (TCA) group. The risk of bias was low for 4 studies, high for 4 studies and 6 studies had some concerns. Conclusion This is the first meta-analysis of RCTs in the management of neovascular glaucoma. The lack of high-quality evidence contributes to the lack of consensus in managing NVG. Our results highlight modern treatment strategies and the need for better powered RCTs with long-term follow-up in order to establish optimal treatment modalities and true patient outcomes.