An experiment in medical education. A critical analysis using traditional criteria

In 1984, in addition to its standard traditional curriculum, Rush Medical College (Chicago, Ill) developed a Socratic problem-based method of teaching basic science material called the alternative curriculum. As part of an evaluation of this new curriculum, students in the two curricula were compared using three traditional measurements: (1) test scores from the National Board of Medical Examiners, Part I; (2) test scores from the National Board of Medical Examiners, Part II; and (3) performance on an oral examination. Alternative curriculum students did not differ significantly from their traditional curriculum classmates on National Board of Medical Examiners, Part I and Part II total scores, although their subset scores on Part I did tend to be lower, reaching significance in one subset area. Differences in performance favoring the traditional curriculum were primarily seen in the early years of the program. Alternative curriculum students in the class matriculated in 1987 scored significantly higher in three of five categories on the oral examination.     

Spinal canal narrowing during simulated frontal impact

Between 23 and 70% of occupants involved in frontal impacts sustain cervical spine injuries, many with neurological involvement. It has been hypothesized that cervical spinal cord compression and injury may explain the variable neurological profile described by frontal impact victims. The goals of the present study, using a biofidelic whole cervical spine model with muscle force replication, were to quantify canal pinch diameter (CPD) narrowing during frontal impact and to evaluate the potential for cord compression. The biofidelic model and a sled apparatus were used to simulate frontal impacts at 4, 6, 8, and 10 g horizontal accelerations of the T1 vertebra. The CPD was measured in the intact specimen in the neutral posture (neutral posture CPD), under static sagittal pure moments of 1.5 Nm (pre-impact CPD), during dynamic frontal impact (dynamic impact CPD), and again under static pure moments following each impact (post-impact CPD). Frontal impact caused significant (P<0.05) dynamic CPD narrowing at C0-dens, C2-C3, and C6-C7. The narrowest dynamic CPD was observed at C0-dens during the 10 g impact and was 25.9% narrower than the corresponding neutral posture CPD. Interpretation of the present results indicate that the neurological symptomatology reported by frontal impact victims is most likely not due to cervical spinal cord compression. Cord compression due to residual spinal instability is also not likely.     

A simple nutrition screening tool for hemodialysis nurses.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the reliability of a nurse-performed nutrition screening tool (NST) for hemodialysis (HD) patients to identify nutritionally at-risk patients. DESIGN: Tool reliability assessment. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: The setting was nine non-hospital private (n = 3) and public (n = 6) HD units in Australia (two rural and seven metropolitan). Participants were 112 HD patients. RESULTS: A total of 112 HD patients (male = 65, female = 47) from 9 non-hospital HD units in Australia (seven metropolitan and two rural) were screened with the NST and the outcome of dietitian referral compared with Standard Dietitians Assessment. The mean age of patients was 57.6 years. Overall, the NST showed a sensitivity of 0.84 (range, 0.71 to 0.94; P < .05) and a specificity of 0.9 (range, 0.82 to 0.98; P < .05). The NST was more sensitive (sensitivity, 0.93 [range, 0.87 to 0.99; P < .05]) and was more specific for men (specificity, 0.92 [range, 0.85 to 0.99; P < .05]). Specificity was very strong in metropolitan patients (specificity, 0.94 [range, 0.87 to 1.01; P < .05]). CONCLUSIONS: The tool was more sensitive and specific than the NST previously reported by the same investigators. The tool is particularly specific in that it screens those patients not requiring dietitian intervention. The use of this tool may benefit HD units that do not have on-site or regular dietetic support to prioritize patients needing dietitian intervention.     

Pesticide assessment: Protecting public health on the home turf

Pesticide regulation is examined in the context of Health Canada’s Pest Management Regulatory Agency’s assessment of the chlorophenoxy herbicide 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D) for turf. 2,4-D is the most common herbicide used to kill weeds in grass.The medical literature does not uniformly indicate harms from herbicides. However, the balance of epidemiological research suggests that 2,4-D can be persuasively linked to cancers, neurological impairment and reproductive problems. These may arise from 2,4-D itself, from breakdown products or dioxin contamination, or from a combination of chemicals.Regulators rely largely on toxicology, but experiments may not replicate exposures from 2,4-D application to lawns because environmental breakdown products (eg, 2,4-dichlorophenol) may not accumulate and selected herbicides are possibly less contaminated. Dioxins are bioaccumulative chemicals that may cause cancer, harm neurological development, impair reproduction, disrupt the endocrine system and alter immune function. No dioxin analyses were submitted to the Pest Management Regulatory Agency, and the principal contaminants of 2,4-D are not among the 17 congeners covered in pesticide regulation. Independent assessment of all dioxins is needed, in tissues and in the environment.The 2,4-D assessment does not approach standards for ethics, rigour or transparency in medical research. Canada needs a stronger regulator for pesticides. Potentially toxic chemicals should not be registered when more benign solutions exist, risks are not clearly quantifiable or potential risks outweigh benefits. Until landscaping pesticides are curtailed nationally, local bylaws and Quebec’s Pesticide Code are prudent measures to protect public health. Physicians have a role in public education regarding pesticides.     

Genetics of epilepsy: epilepsy research foundation workshop report.

The Sixth Epilepsy Research Foundation workshop, held in Oxford in March 2006, brought together basic scientists, geneticists, epidemiologists, statisticians, pharmacologists and clinicians to consider progress, issues and strategies for harnessing genetics to improve the understanding and treatment of the epilepsies. General principles were considered, including the fundamental importance of clear study design, adequate patient numbers, defi ned phenotypes, robust statistical data handling, and follow-up of genetic discoveries. Topics where some progress had been made were considered including chromosomal abnormalities, neurodevelopment, hippocampal sclerosis, juvenile myoclonic epilepsy, focal cortical dysplasia and pharmacogenetics. The ethical aspects of epilepsy genetics were reviewed. Principles and limitations of collaboration were discussed. Presentations and their matched discussions are produced here. There was optimism that further genetic research in epilepsy was not only feasible, but might lead to improvements in the lives of people with epilepsy.