Evaluation of YouTube Videos as a Source of Information on Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing

Aim: Non-invasive prenatal testing is a method that determines the risk of a fetus being born with certain genetic abnormalities. In this study, we aimed to examine the quality of information on YouTube for non-invasive prenatal testing. Methods: The term "Non-invasive prenatal testing" was entered in the YouTube search bar on May 1, 2021, and the top 50 YouTube videos of the non-invasive prenatal testing with the highest number of views were recorded after the exclusion of videos with a non-English language, videos repeated twice and irrelevant videos. Length of the videos, likes, and dislikes were recorded. Videos were evaluated by two obstetricians. A questionnaire consisting of 9 dichotomous questions was conducted to assess whether there was adequate information about non-invasive prenatal testing. In addition, video quality was evaluated with the Global Quality Scale, the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool and the Journal of the American Medical Association Benchmark Criteria. Results: The mean Global Quality Scale was 2.96±0.62. Most videos answered the question: ‘What is non-invasive prenatal testing?’ (94%), and ‘How is non-invasive prenatal testing done?’ (82%). However, there was a lack of information about the limitation of non-invasive prenatal testing in certain situations (only %16 of videos answered limitations of non-invasive prenatal testing). Three (6%) of the videos had misinformation. The mean Global Quality Scale was 2.96±0.62. The Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool mean value was 72% and 58% in terms of understandability and actionability, respectively. The mean Journal of the American Medical Association Benchmark Criteria score was found as 1.4±0.8. Conclusion: The videos posted about non-invasive prenatal testing on YouTube were of poor-moderate quality. If the quality of the videos increases, patients can have sufficient and accurate information about non-invasive prenatal, especially during these pandemic days. Keywords: health information, prenatal diagnosis, online systems

Point-of-Care Ultrasound Training and Credentialing for mid-late Career Emergency Physicians: Is it worth it?

Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) is becoming more prevalent in community emergency medicine (EM) practice with the current American College of Emergency Physician guidelines recommending POCUS training for all graduates from United States based residency programs as well as support for POCUS privileging by the American Medical Association. However, in a recent survey of nonacademic EDs, it was found that most providers lack US training, credentialing, and quality assurance (QA) assessments of their POCUS studies. In 2017, our healthcare system embarked on a system-wide credentialing process for POCUS to credential community physicians with little to no POCUS training.

Accuracy of Conflict-of-Interest Disclosures of Physician-Authors Publishing in High-Impact U.S. Medical Journals: A Comparison of the Journal of the American Medical Association and the New England Journal of Medicine

Objective: To assess the accuracy of self-reported financial conflict-of-interest (COI) disclosures in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) and Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) within the requisite disclosure period prior to article submission. Design: Cross-sectional investigation. Data Sources: Original clinical-trial research articles published in NEJM (n = 206) or JAMA (n = 188) from January 1 to December 31, 2017; self-reported COI disclosure forms submitted to NEJM or JAMA with the authors published articles; Open Payments website (from database inception; latest search: August 2019). Main outcome measures: Financial data reported to Open Payments from 2014 to 2016 (time period that included all subjects requisite disclosure windows) were compared to self-reported disclosure forms submitted to the journals. Payments were defined as those not associated with a research study or formal research funding. Payment types were categorized as disclosed, undisclosed, indeterminate, or unrelated. Results: Thirty-one articles from NEJM and 31 articles from JAMA met inclusion criteria. The physician-authors (n = 118) received a combined total of $7.48 million. Of the 106 authors (89.8%) who received payments, 86 (81.1%) received undisclosed payments. The top 23 most highly compensated received $6.32 million, of which $3.00 million (47.6%) was undisclosed. Disclosure rates were the equivalent between the top 23 and the entire sample. Conclusions: High payment amounts, as well as high proportions of undisclosed financial compensation, regardless of amount received, comprised potential COIs for two influential US medical journals. Further research is needed to explain why such high proportions of general payments were undisclosed and whether journals that rely on self-reported COI disclosure need to reconsider their policies.

Looking back at the lawsuit that transformed the chiropractic profession: Overview

The purpose of this paper is to provide a brief overview of Looking Back at the Lawsuit That Transformed the Chiropractic Profession, which is a series of 8 research papers that explore the historical events surrounding the Wilk v American Medical Association lawsuit and how these events may have had an influence on the chiropractic profession.

Looking back at the lawsuit that transformed the chiropractic profession part 2: Rise of the American Medical Association

Objective This paper is the second in a series that explores the historical events surrounding the Wilk v American Medical Association (AMA) lawsuit in which the plaintiffs argued that the AMA, the American Hospital Association, and other medical specialty societies violated anti-trust law by restraining chiropractors' business practices. The purpose of this paper is to provide a brief review of the history of how the AMA rose to dominate health care in the United States, and within this social context, how the chiropractic profession fought to survive in the first half of the 20th century. Methods This historical research study used a phenomenological approach to qualitative inquiry into the conflict between regular medicine and chiropractic and the events before, during, and after a legal dispute at the time of modernization of the chiropractic profession. Our methods included obtaining primary and secondary data sources. The final narrative recount was developed into 8 papers following a successive timeline. This paper is the second of the series that explores the growth of medicine and the chiropractic profession. Results The AMA's code of ethics established in 1847 continued to direct organized medicine's actions to exclude other health professions. During the early 1900s, the AMA established itself as “regular medicine.” They labeled other types of medicine and health care professions, such as chiropractic, as “irregulars” claiming that they were cultists and quacks. In addition to the rise in power of the AMA, a report written by Abraham Flexner helped to solidify the AMA's control over health care. Chiropractic as a profession was emerging and developing in practice, education, and science. The few resources available to chiropractors were used to defend their profession against attacks from organized medicine and to secure legislation to legalize the practice of chiropractic. After years of struggle, the last state in the US legalized chiropractic 79 years after the birth of the profession. Conclusion In the first part of the 20th century, the AMA was amassing power as chiropractic was just emerging as a profession. Events such as publication of Flexner's report and development of the medical basic science laws helped to entrench the AMA's monopoly on health care. The health care environment shaped how chiropractic grew as a profession. Chiropractic practice, education, and science were challenged by trying to develop outside of the medical establishment. These events added to the tensions between the professions that ultimately resulted in the Wilk v AMA lawsuit.

Looking back at the lawsuit that transformed the chiropractic profession: Authors' introduction

This paper provides the authors' introduction to Looking Back: A Historical Review of the Lawsuit That Transformed the Chiropractic Profession, which is a series of papers that reviews events surrounding the federal antitrust lawsuit Wilk v American Medical Association. Information in this series describes the events before, during, and after the lawsuit and the relevant issues related to the transformation of American mainstream health care and chiropractic. These papers give insight into many of the factors that shaped the chiropractic profession that we know today.

Looking back at the lawsuit that transformed the chiropractic profession part 7: Lawsuit and decisions

Objective This is the seventh paper in a series that explores the historical events surrounding the Wilk v American Medical Association (AMA) lawsuit in which the plaintiffs argued that the AMA, the American Hospital Association, and other medical specialty societies violated antitrust law by restraining chiropractors' business practices. The purpose of this paper is to provide a summary of the lawsuit that was first filed in 1976 and concluded with the final denial of appeal in 1990. Methods This historical research study used a phenomenological approach to qualitative inquiry into the conflict between regular medicine and chiropractic and the events before, during, and after a legal dispute at the time of modernization of the chiropractic profession. Our methods included obtaining primary and secondary data sources. The final narrative recount was developed into 8 papers following a successive time line. This paper, the seventh of the series, considers the information of the 2 trials and the judge's decision. Results By the time the first trial began in 1980, the AMA had already changed its anti-chiropractic stance to allow medical doctors to associate with chiropractors if they wished. In the first trial, the chiropractors were not able to overcome the very stigma that organized medicine worked so hard to create over many decades, which resulted in the jury voting in favor of the AMA and other defendants. The plaintiffs, Drs Patricia Arthur, James Bryden, Michael Pedigo, and Chester Wilk, continued with their pursuit of justice. Their lawyer, Mr George McAndrews, fought for an appeal and was allowed a second trial. The second trial was a bench trial in which Judge Susan Getzendanner declared her final judgment that “the American Medical Association (AMA) and its members participated in a conspiracy against chiropractors in violation of the nation's antitrust laws.” After the AMA's appeal was denied by the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in 1990, the decision was declared permanent. The injunction that was ordered by the judge was published in the January 1, 1988, issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association. Conclusion The efforts by Mr McAndrews and his legal team and the persistence of the plaintiffs and countless others in the chiropractic profession concluded in Judge Getzendanner's decision, which prevented the AMA from rebuilding barriers or developing another boycott. The chiropractic profession was ready to move into its next century.

Necessity of developing a disability evaluation guideline

Background: Although doctors expend their best effort in treating their patients’ illnesses or injuries, the patients may retain some disabilities even after treatment. Accordingly, some conflicts occur between the patients’ expectations of financial compensation for their disabilities and the financial manager’s policy to efficiently distribute limited resources. The mediation of these social conflicts requires the determination of the degree of physical disability, which can be done by doctors alone. Hence, a reliable disability evaluation guideline should be established. However, currently, only a few educational programs on disability evaluation are available for doctors and there is no reliable guideline for disability evaluation.Current Concepts: There were attempts to implement the American Medical Association guideline in Korea; however, it is currently not being used efficiently because it is quite complicated and unsuited to Korean settings. Mcbride’s disability evaluation, published 60 years ago, is being used, but it is not realistic and unreasonable in Korea. To prepare a standard guideline for disability evaluation, the Korean Academy of Medical Sciences published a booklet, “Disability Evaluation Guideline: Explanation and Case Studies”, based on the American Medical Association guideline. The academy published the booklet’s revised version (2nd edition), ‘Disability evaluation guideline and utilization’, in 2016. However, Korean Academy of Medical Sciences guideline still not being used because it is too complicated to use.Discussion and Conclusion: Fair disability evaluation is a social responsibility given to doctors, and there should be a useful guideline for disability evaluation that reflects the characteristics of each medical society or association.

Readability of Online Patient Education Materials for Dental Radiology

Conclusion: None of the webpages fulfilled the recommendations from the National Institute of Health and the American Medical Association of being written below a seventh-grade level. More online patient education materials for dental radiology were recommended, and they should be written in a more easily understood way.