A Cohort Study Assessing the Impact of Anki as a Spaced Repetition Tool on Academic Performance in Medical School

Introduction Anki is an application that capitalizes upon the techniques of spaced repetition and is increasingly utilized by medical students for examination preparation. This study examines the impact of Anki usage in a medical school curriculum on academic performance. Secondary objectives analyzed individual Anki utilization and a qualitative assessment of Anki use. Methods A cohort-control study was conducted at Boonshoft School of Medicine. One hundred thirty first-year medical students were enrolled in an Anki utilization training program from July 2021 to September 2021. Training included educational Anki courses and subsequent survey data collection over Anki usage. Data variables included all course final examinations, the Comprehensive Basic Science Exam (CBSE), individual Anki user statistics, nationally standardized exams scores, and Qualtrics surveys on student perceived ease of use. Results Seventy-eight students reported using Anki for at least one of the exams, and 52 students did not use Anki for any exam. Anki users scored significantly higher across all four exams: Course I (6.4%; p \u3c 0.001); Course II (6.2%; p = 0.002); Course III (7.0%; p = 0.002); and CBSE (12.9%; p = 0.003). Students who reported higher dependency on Anki for studying performed significantly better on the Course I, II, and CBSE exams. Conclusion Anki usage may be associated with an increase in standardized examination scores. This supports Anki as an evidence-based spaced repetition and active retrieval learning modality for medical school standardized examinations. There was little correlation between its specific statistical markers and examination performance. This is pertinent to physicians and medical students alike as the learning and preservation of biomedical knowledge is required for examinations and effective clinical care

Assessment of patient perceptions of technology and the use of machine-based learning in a clinical encounter

Background: Electronic health records (EHR) were implemented to improve patient care, reduce healthcare disparities, engage patients and families, improve care coordination, and maintain privacy and security. Unfortunately, the mandated use of EHR has also resulted in significantly increased clerical and administrative burden, with physicians spending an estimated three-fourths of their daily time interacting with the EHR, which negatively affects within-clinic processes and contributes to burnout. In-room scribes are associated with improvement in all aspects of physician satisfaction and increased productivity, though less is known about the use of other technologies such as Google Glass (GG), Natural Language Processing (NLP) and Machine-Based Learning (MBL) systems. Given the need to decrease administrative burden on clinicians, particularly in the utilization of the EHR, there is a need to explore the intersection between varying degrees of technology in the clinical encounter and their ability to meet the aforementioned goals of the EHR. Aims: The primary aim is to determine predictors of overall perception of care dependent on varying mechanisms used for documentation and medical decision-making in a routine clinical encounter. Secondary aims include comparing the perception of individual vignettes based on demographics of the participants and investigating any differences in perception questions by demographics of the participants. Methods: Video vignettes were shown to 498 OhioHealth Physician Group patients and to ResearchMatch volunteers during a 15-month period following IRB approval. Data included a baseline survey to gather demographic and background characteristics and then a perceptual survey where patients rated the physician in the video on 5 facets using a 1 to 5 Likert scale. The analysis included summarizing data of all continuous and categorical variables as well as overall perceptions analyzed using multivariate linear regression with perception score as the outcome variable. Results: Univariate modeling identified sex, education, and type of technology as three factors that were statistically significantly related to the overall perception score. Males had higher scores than females (p = 0.03) and those with lower education had higher scores (p \u3c 0.001). In addition, the physician documenting outside of the room encounter had statistically significantly higher overall perception scores (mean = 22.2, p \u3c 0.001) and the physician documenting in the room encounter had statistically significantly lower overall perception scores (mean = 15.3, p \u3c 0.001) when compared to the other vignettes. Multivariable modeling identified all three of the univariably significant factors as independent factors related to overall perception score. Specifically, high school education had higher scores than associate/bachelor education (LSM = 21.6 vs. 19.9, p = 0.0002) and higher scores than master/higher education (LSM = 21.6 vs. 19.5, p \u3c 0.0001). No differences between age groups were found on the individual perception scores. Males had higher scores than females on ‘The doctor clearly explained the diagnosis and treatment to the patient’ and ‘The doctor was sincere and trustworthy’. High school education had higher scores than associate/bachelor and master/higher on all five individual perception scores. Conclusion: The study found sex, education, and type of technology were significant indicators for overall perception of varying technologies used for documentation and medical decision-making in a routine clinical encounter. Importantly, the vignette depicting the least interaction with the EHR received the most positive overall perception score, while the vignette depicting the physician utilizing the EHR during the interaction received the least positive overall perception score. This suggests patients most value having the full attention of the physician and feel less strongly about differentiating the logistics of data transcription and medical decision-making, provided they feel engaged during the interaction. Therefore, the authors suggest maximizing face-to-face time in the integration of technology into the clinical encounter, allowing for increased perceptions of personal attention in the patient-physician interaction

Cerebral Venous Sinus Thrombosis Following an mRNA COVID-19 Vaccination and Recent Oral Contraceptive Use

Rising concerns of cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST) and other forms of venous thromboembolism have been associated with the SARS-CoV-2 vaccinations. Adverse effects with vector-based vaccines are well documented in the literature, while less is known about the mRNA vaccines. This report documents a case of CVST in a 32-year-old female patient who received her second Pfizer mRNA COVID-19 vaccination 16 days prior to hospital admission and had started oral combined contraceptives approximately 4 months beforehand. Clinicians should be cognizant of the possibility that mRNA vaccines, when combined with other risk factors like oral contraceptive pill use, may enhance one’s hypercoagulable status

Cerebral Venous Sinus Thrombosis Following an mRNA COVID-19 Vaccination and Recent Oral Contraceptive Use

Rising concerns of cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST) and other forms of venous thromboembolism have been associated with the SARS-CoV-2 vaccinations. Adverse effects with vector-based vaccines are well documented in the literature, while less is known about the mRNA vaccines. This report documents a case of CVST in a 32-year-old female patient who received her second Pfizer mRNA COVID-19 vaccination 16 days prior to hospital admission and had started oral combined contraceptives approximately 4 months beforehand. Clinicians should be cognizant of the possibility that mRNA vaccines, when combined with other risk factors like oral contraceptive pill use, may enhance one’s hypercoagulable status

Funding Has No Effect on Studies Evaluating Viscosupplementation for Knee Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review of Bibliometrics and Conflicts of Interest

Background Viscosupplementation for knee osteoarthritis (OA) may raise concerns regarding conflicts of interest (COI). Evidence of inconclusive study results and publication bias in previous studies has led to concern that financial COI have influenced viscosupplementation outcomes. It is critical to ensure that clinical practice is guided by informed decision making and evidence-based medicine. Methods A systematic review was conducted following PRISMA guidelines. PubMed, MEDLINE, and Web of Science databases were searched for articles pertaining to hyaluronic acid (or similarly derived) injections to native knees with primary OA only. Bibliometric data, financial COI, and study outcomes were assessed. Results 67 studies met inclusion criteria for analysis, 53 of which (79.1%) presented Level I evidence, and 21 of which (31.3%) reported at least one author with COI. All studies reporting COI also disclosed industry funding. There were no relationships between reported COI and study outcomes (Χ2 = 0.31, P = 0.577), levels of evidence (Χ2 = 3.48, P = 0.176), or relative citation ratio (RCR) (S = 743, P = 0.591). Studies reporting COIs/industry funding tended to be published in journals with significantly higher impact factors (IF) (reporting COI: IF = 3.5 ± 2.0; no COI: IF = 1.8 ± 1.1; S = 950, P \u3c 0.001). Study outcomes were not related to the probability of being published in an open access journal (Χ2 = 0.01, P = 0.960), nor to level of evidence (Χ2 = 2.67, P = 0.263), RCR (S = 618, P = 0.835), or IF (S = 563, P = 0.655). Conclusions Investigator COIs (and commercial funding of studies) have not significantly influenced the frequency of favorable outcomes or study level of evidence regarding contemporary viscosupplementation for the treatment of knee OA. Studies reporting COIs/industry funding tended to be published in journals with significantly higher impact factors. Results overwhelmingly supported using viscosupplementation to treat knee OA. Level of evidence Level V Systematic Review

Funding Has No Effect on Studies Evaluating Viscosupplementation for Knee Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review of Bibliometrics and Conflicts of Interest

Background Viscosupplementation for knee osteoarthritis (OA) may raise concerns regarding conflicts of interest (COI). Evidence of inconclusive study results and publication bias in previous studies has led to concern that financial COI have influenced viscosupplementation outcomes. It is critical to ensure that clinical practice is guided by informed decision making and evidence-based medicine. Methods A systematic review was conducted following PRISMA guidelines. PubMed, MEDLINE, and Web of Science databases were searched for articles pertaining to hyaluronic acid (or similarly derived) injections to native knees with primary OA only. Bibliometric data, financial COI, and study outcomes were assessed. Results 67 studies met inclusion criteria for analysis, 53 of which (79.1%) presented Level I evidence, and 21 of which (31.3%) reported at least one author with COI. All studies reporting COI also disclosed industry funding. There were no relationships between reported COI and study outcomes (Χ2 = 0.31, P = 0.577), levels of evidence (Χ2 = 3.48, P = 0.176), or relative citation ratio (RCR) (S = 743, P = 0.591). Studies reporting COIs/industry funding tended to be published in journals with significantly higher impact factors (IF) (reporting COI: IF = 3.5 ± 2.0; no COI: IF = 1.8 ± 1.1; S = 950, P \u3c 0.001). Study outcomes were not related to the probability of being published in an open access journal (Χ2 = 0.01, P = 0.960), nor to level of evidence (Χ2 = 2.67, P = 0.263), RCR (S = 618, P = 0.835), or IF (S = 563, P = 0.655). Conclusions Investigator COIs (and commercial funding of studies) have not significantly influenced the frequency of favorable outcomes or study level of evidence regarding contemporary viscosupplementation for the treatment of knee OA. Studies reporting COIs/industry funding tended to be published in journals with significantly higher impact factors. Results overwhelmingly supported using viscosupplementation to treat knee OA. Level of evidence Level V Systematic Review

Funding Has No Effect on Studies Evaluating Viscosupplementation for Knee Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review of Bibliometrics and Conflicts of Interest

Background Viscosupplementation for knee osteoarthritis (OA) may raise concerns regarding conflicts of interest (COI). Evidence of inconclusive study results and publication bias in previous studies has led to concern that financial COI have influenced viscosupplementation outcomes. It is critical to ensure that clinical practice is guided by informed decision making and evidence-based medicine. Methods A systematic review was conducted following PRISMA guidelines. PubMed, MEDLINE, and Web of Science databases were searched for articles pertaining to hyaluronic acid (or similarly derived) injections to native knees with primary OA only. Bibliometric data, financial COI, and study outcomes were assessed. Results 67 studies met inclusion criteria for analysis, 53 of which (79.1%) presented Level I evidence, and 21 of which (31.3%) reported at least one author with COI. All studies reporting COI also disclosed industry funding. There were no relationships between reported COI and study outcomes (Χ2 = 0.31, P = 0.577), levels of evidence (Χ2 = 3.48, P = 0.176), or relative citation ratio (RCR) (S = 743, P = 0.591). Studies reporting COIs/industry funding tended to be published in journals with significantly higher impact factors (IF) (reporting COI: IF = 3.5 ± 2.0; no COI: IF = 1.8 ± 1.1; S = 950, P \u3c 0.001). Study outcomes were not related to the probability of being published in an open access journal (Χ2 = 0.01, P = 0.960), nor to level of evidence (Χ2 = 2.67, P = 0.263), RCR (S = 618, P = 0.835), or IF (S = 563, P = 0.655). Conclusions Investigator COIs (and commercial funding of studies) have not significantly influenced the frequency of favorable outcomes or study level of evidence regarding contemporary viscosupplementation for the treatment of knee OA. Studies reporting COIs/industry funding tended to be published in journals with significantly higher impact factors. Results overwhelmingly supported using viscosupplementation to treat knee OA. Level of evidence Level V Systematic Review

A Cohort Study Assessing the Impact of Anki as a Spaced Repetition Tool on Academic Performance in Medical School

Introduction Anki is an application that capitalizes upon the techniques of spaced repetition and is increasingly utilized by medical students for examination preparation. This study examines the impact of Anki usage in a medical school curriculum on academic performance. Secondary objectives analyzed individual Anki utilization and a qualitative assessment of Anki use. Methods A cohort-control study was conducted at Boonshoft School of Medicine. One hundred thirty first-year medical students were enrolled in an Anki utilization training program from July 2021 to September 2021. Training included educational Anki courses and subsequent survey data collection over Anki usage. Data variables included all course final examinations, the Comprehensive Basic Science Exam (CBSE), individual Anki user statistics, nationally standardized exams scores, and Qualtrics surveys on student perceived ease of use. Results Seventy-eight students reported using Anki for at least one of the exams, and 52 students did not use Anki for any exam. Anki users scored significantly higher across all four exams: Course I (6.4%; p \u3c 0.001); Course II (6.2%; p = 0.002); Course III (7.0%; p = 0.002); and CBSE (12.9%; p = 0.003). Students who reported higher dependency on Anki for studying performed significantly better on the Course I, II, and CBSE exams. Conclusion Anki usage may be associated with an increase in standardized examination scores. This supports Anki as an evidence-based spaced repetition and active retrieval learning modality for medical school standardized examinations. There was little correlation between its specific statistical markers and examination performance. This is pertinent to physicians and medical students alike as the learning and preservation of biomedical knowledge is required for examinations and effective clinical care