Payments by Industry to Residency Program Directors in the United States: A Cross-Sectional Study

Purpose To assess the proportion, nature, and extent of financial payments from industry to residency program directors in the United States. Method This cross-sectional study used opensource data from Doximity and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS) open payments database. Profiles of 4,686 residency program directors from 28 different specialties were identified using Doximity and matched to records in the CMS database. All payments received per residency program director over the years 2014 to 2018 were extracted, including amount in U.S. dollars, payment year, and nature of payment (research versus general payments). Total payments (research plus general payments) received over the 5 years were added up per residency program director. Only personal payments were included. Results Overall, 74% (3,465/4,686) of all residency program directors received 1 or more personal payments, totaling $77,058,139, with a median of$216 (interquartile range, $0-$2,150) and a mean of $16,444 (standard deviation,$183,061) per residency program director over the 5 years. Ninety-five percent of total payment value were general payments, and 5% were personal research payments. About 11% (536/4,686) of residency program directors received more than $10,000, while 3$100,000 in the study years. There was a substantial difference in the proportion (P < .001), nature (P < .001), and amount (P < .001) of payments of residency program directors between specialties. Almost all residency program directors of interventional radiology (96% [74/77]), vascular surgery (96% [53/55]), and orthopedic surgery (92% [184/201]) received payments, while only one-third to one-half of those in preventive medicine (29% [18/62]), pediatrics (43% [90/211]), and pathology (51% [73/143]) received payments. Conclusions Industry payments to residency program directors are common, although large variation exists between specialties. The majority of direct payments to residency program directors are for non-researchrelated activities

What are the best diagnostic tests for diagnosing bacterial arthritis of a native joint?: a systematic review of 27 studies

AIMS: This study aimed to answer two questions: what are the best diagnostic methods for diagnosing bacterial arthritis of a native joint?; and what are the most commonly used definitions for bacterial arthritis of a native joint? METHODS: We performed a search of PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane libraries for relevant studies published between January 1980 and April 2020. Of 3,209 identified studies, we included 27 after full screening. Sensitivity, specificity, area under the curve, and Youden index of diagnostic tests were extracted from included studies. We grouped test characteristics per diagnostic modality. We extracted the definitions used to establish a definitive diagnosis of bacterial arthritis of a native joint per study. RESULTS: Overall, 28 unique diagnostic tests for diagnosing bacterial arthritis of a native joint were identified. The following five tests were deemed most useful: serum ESR (sensitivity: 34% to 100%, specificity: 23% to 93%), serum CRP (sensitivity: 58% to 100%, specificity: 0% to 96%), serum procalcitonin (sensitivity: 0% to 100%, specificity: 68% to 100%), the proportion of synovial polymorphonuclear cells (sensitivity: 42% to 100%, specificity: 54% to 94%), and the gram stain of synovial fluid (sensitivity: 27% to 81%, specificity: 99% to 100%). CONCLUSION: Diagnostic methods with relatively high sensitivities, such as serum CRP, ESR, and synovial polymorphonuclear cells, are useful for screening. Diagnostic methods with a relatively high specificity, such as serum procalcitonin and synovial fluid gram stain, are useful for establishing a diagnosis of bacterial arthritis. This review helps to interpret the value of various diagnostic tests for diagnosing bacterial arthritis of a native joint in clinical practice. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(12):1745-1753

Analysis of Online Reviews of Orthopaedic Surgeons and Orthopaedic Practices Using Natural Language Processing

BACKGROUND: There is growing interest in measuring and improving patient experience. Machine learning-based natural language processing techniques may help identify instructive themes in online comments written by patients about their healthcare provider. Separating individual surgeon and orthopaedic office reviews, we analyzed themes that are discussed based on the rating category, the association with review length, the number of people posting more than one review for a surgeon or office, the mean number of reviews per rating category, and the difference in review tones. METHODS: On Yelp.com, we collected 11,614 free-text reviews-together with a one- to five-star rating-of orthopaedic surgeons. Using natural language processing, we identified the most frequently occurring word combinations among rating categories. Themes were derived by categorizing word combinations. Dominant tones (emotional and language styles) were assessed by the IBM Watson Tone Analyzer. We calculated chi-square tests for linear trend and Spearman's rank correlation coefficients to assess differences among rating category. RESULTS: For individual surgeons and orthopaedic offices, themes such as logistics, care and compassion, trust, recommendation, and customer service varied among rating categories. More positive reviews are shorter for individual surgeons and orthopaedic offices, while rating category was comparable among people posting more than one review for both groups. Tones of joy and confidence were associated with higher ratings. Sadness and tentative tones were associated with lower ratings. DISCUSSION: For individual orthopaedic surgeons and orthopaedic offices, patient experience may be influenced mostly by the patient-clinician relationship. Training in more effective communication strategies may help improve self-reported patient experience

Antihypertensive drugs demonstrate varying levels of hip fracture risk: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective: By aggregating the literature, we evaluated the association between use of specific antihypertensive drugs and the risk of hip fractures compared with nonuse. Study design and setting: We systematically searched the Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane databases from inception of each database until July 30, 2020 to identify articles including patients 18 years of age or older reporting on the association between antihypertensive drugs and the risk of hip fracture. Antihypertensive drugs were restricted to thiazides; beta-blockers; calcium-channel blockers; angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors; and angiotensin receptor blockers. Nonusers encompass all patients that are not using the specific antihypertensive drug that has been reported. Unadjusted odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of the association between antihypertensive drug use and hip fractures were reported. Meta-analysis was performed when a minimum of five studies were identified for each antihypertensive drug class. Quality assessment was done using ROBINS-I tool. The GRADE approach was used to evaluate the certainty of the evidence. Results: Of 962 citations, 22 observational studies were included; 9 studies had a cohort design and 13 studies were case-control studies. No randomized controlled trials were identified. We found very low certainty of evidence that both thiazides (pooled odds ratio: 0.85, 95% CI 0.73 to 0.99, p = 0.04) as well as beta-blockers (pooled odds ratio: 0.88, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.98, p = 0.02) were associated with a reduced hip fracture risk as compared to specific nonuse. One study, reporting on angiotensin receptor blockers, also suggested a protective effect for hip fractures, whereas we found conflicting findings in four studies for calcium-channel blockers and in two studies for ACE inhibitors. Conclusion: Among 22 observational studies, we found very low certainty of evidence that, compared to specific nonuse of antihypertensive drugs, use of thiazides, beta-blockers, and angiotensin receptor blockers were associated with a reduced protective hip fracture risk, while conflicting findings for calcium-channel blockers and ACE inhibitors were found. Given the low quality of included studies, further research –randomized controlled trials– are needed to definitively assess the causal relationship between specific antihypertensive drug classes and (relatively infrequent) hip fractures