Team Interpretation Research Articles

How to Conduct a State-of-the-Art Literature Review.

How to Conduct a State-of-the-Art Literature Review.

Delineating the field of medical education: Bibliometric research approach(es).

BackgroundThe field of medical education remains poorly delineated such that there is no broad consensus of articles or journals that comprise ‘the field’. This lack of consensus indicates a missed opportunity for researchers to generate insights about the field that could facilitate conducting bibliometric studies and other research designs (e.g., systematic reviews) and also enable individuals to identify themselves as ‘medical education researchers’. Other fields have utilised bibliometric field delineation, which is the assigning of articles or journals to a certain field in an effort to define that field.ProcessIn this Research Approach, three bibliometric field delineation approaches—information retrieval, core journals, and journal co‐citation—are introduced. For each approach, the authors describe attempts to apply it in medical education and identify related strengths and weaknesses. Based on co‐citation, the authors propose the Medical Education Journal List 24 (MEJ‐24), as a starting point for delineating medical education and invite the community to collaborate on improving and potentially expanding this list.PearlsAs a research approach, field delineation is complicated, and there is no clear best way to delineate the field of medical education. However, recent advances in information science provide potentially fruitful approaches to deal with the field's complexity. When considering these approaches, researchers should consider collaborating with bibliometricians. Bibliometric approaches rely on available metadata for articles and journals, which necessitates that researchers examine the metadata prior to analysis to understand its strengths and weaknesses, and to assess how this might affect data interpretation. While using bibliometric approaches for field delineation is valuable, it is important to remember that these techniques are only as good as the research team's interpretation of the data, which suggests that an expanded approach is needed to better delineate medical education, an approach that includes active discussion within the medical education community.

Clinical Accuracy and Impact of Plasma Cell-Free DNA Fungal Polymerase Chain Reaction Panel for Noninvasive Diagnosis of Fungal Infection.

Invasive fungal infection (IFI) is a growing cause of morbidity and mortality in oncology and transplant patients. Diagnosis of IFI is often delayed due to need for invasive biopsy and low sensitivity of conventional diagnostic methods. Fungal cell-free DNA (cfDNA) detection in plasma is a novel testing modality for the noninvasive diagnosis of IFI. A novel bioinformatic pipeline was created to interrogate fungal genomes and identify multicopy sequences for cfDNA polymerase chain reaction (PCR) targeting. A real-time PCR panel was developed for 12 genera and species most commonly causing IFI. Sensitivity and specificity of the fungal PCR panel were determined using plasma samples from patients with IFI and non-IFI controls. Clinical impact of the fungal PCR panel was evaluated prospectively based on the treating team's interpretation of the results. Overall, the sensitivity and specificity were 56.5% (65/115; 95% confidence interval [CI], 47.4-65.2) and 99.5% (2064/2075; 95% CI, 99.0-99.7), respectively. In the subset of patients with an optimized plasma volume (2 mL), sensitivity was 69.6% (48/69; 95% CI, 57.9-79.2). Sensitivity was 91.7% (11/12; 95% CI, 62.5-100) for detection of Mucorales agents, 56.3% (9/16; 95% CI, 33.2-76.9) for Aspergillus species, and 84.6% (11/13; 95% CI, 56.5-96.9) for Candida albicans. In a prospective evaluation of 226 patients with suspected IFI, cfDNA testing was positive in 47 (20.8%) patients and resulted in a positive impact on clinical management in 20 of 47 (42.6%). The fungal cfDNA PCR panel offers a noninvasive approach to early diagnosis of IFI, providing actionable results for personalized care.

Transcending Bias in Diagnosis and Treatment for Women with Serious Mental Illness

This article includes alternative approaches to current psychiatric diagnosis and treatment of women with serious mental illness (SMI) applying the theory of intersectionality and a trauma- informed perspective. We will discuss how these perspectives enriched the work of our mental health treatment team and reduced bias, stigma, and limitations associated with traditional diagnoses. Two vignettes are presented to illuminate the importance of our treatment team's interpretations of “psychotic symptoms” as meaningful communications. We will explore how interdisciplinary collaborations enabled us to work in an empowering framework in these clinical encounters. We will also examine the impact of race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, gender, immigration and severe child abuse in these cases. Finally, we will discuss the value of multimodal treatment used by our treatment team as a promising approach to begin the integrative process of healing for women with serious mental illness.

Eligibility Determination for Intravenous Thrombolysis Based on Radiology Interpretation Report of the Head CT Scan in Patients with Acute Ischemic Stroke

To evaluate the variability of determining eligibility for intravenous thrombolysis (IV t-PA) by a stroke team interpretation of computed tomographic (CT) scan of the head versus review of the radiology interpretation (presented in final report) in patients with acute ischemic stroke. We compiled a database of all IV t-PA-treated ischemic stroke patients at our academic institution based on the stroke team's CT scan interpretation. The CT scan reports of 171 patients were reviewed by an independent board-certified vascular neurologist who was blinded to clinical information except that all patients were being considered for IV t-PA to determine their eligibility for thrombolysis. The reviewer's responses were then compared with the treating team's decision to identify discrepancies, and the impact of the discrepant decisions on clinical outcome including 24-hour National Institute of Health stroke Scale (NIHSS) score and discharge modified Rankin scale (mRS), symptomatic hemorrhage (sICH), and asymptomatic hemorrhage (aICH). We compared the outcomes of patients who received IV t-PA despite cautionary neuroradiologist interpretation and placebo-treated patients from NINDS t-PA study. The independent reviewer decided to treat with IV t-PA 123 patients (72%) after reviewing the radiology reports. The rate of NIHSS score improvement (52.0% vs. 62.5%, P = .22) was not different between patients in whom IV t-PA should or should not have been used based on radiology reports. Favorable clinical outcome defined by mRS of 0-2 at discharge (50.4% vs. 47.9%, P = .77) and in-hospital mortality (15.6% vs. 12.5%, P = .61) were similar between the 2 groups. Favorable outcome (discharge or day 7-10 mRS 0-2) was significantly higher in patients who received t-PA compared with placebo-treated patients (48% vs. 28%, P = .006). Our study demonstrates that administering IV t-PA to patients based on the stroke team's interpretation of the CT scan versus review of the radiology interpretation does not lead to significant differences in clinical outcome, aICH, or sICH.