No abstract

Traditionally, scholarship that was recognized for promotion and tenure consisted of clinical research, bench research, and grant funding. Recent trends have allowed for differing approaches to scholarship, including digital publication. As increasing numbers of trainees and faculty turn to online educational resources, it is imperative to critically evaluate these resources. This article summarizes five key papers that address the appraisal of digital scholarship and describes their relevance to junior clinician educators and faculty developers.In May 2017, the Academic Life in Emergency Medicine Faculty Incubator program focused on the topic of digital scholarship, providing and discussing papers relevant to the topic. We augmented this list of papers with further suggestions by guest experts and by an open call via Twitter for other important papers. Through this process, we created a list of 38 papers in total on the topic of evaluating digital scholarship. In order to determine which of these papers best describe how to evaluate digital scholarship, the authorship group assessed the papers using a modified Delphi approach to build consensus.In this paper we present the five most highly rated papers from our process about evaluating digital scholarship. We summarize each paper and discuss its specific relevance to junior faculty members and to faculty developers. These papers provide a framework for assessing the quality of digital scholarship, so that junior faculty can recommend high-quality educational resources to their trainees. These papers help guide educators on how to produce high quality digital scholarship and maximize recognition and credit in respect to receiving promotion and tenure.

No abstract

No abstract

Objective: Invasive intracranial pressure (ICP) monitoring is the gold standard, but is not always readily accessible or practical. Ultrasound of the optic nerve sheath diameter (ONSD) has been proposed for detecting both elevation and change in the ICP. Our study is a prospective observational trial that seeks to determine if ultrasound can be reliably used to identify changes in ICP with naturally occurring variations in patient care. Methods: A convenience sample of patients with invasive ICP monitoring were enrolled. Patients were identified prior to interventions that were suspected to cause a change in ICP. Measurement of ICP and ONSD was obtained prior to the intervention, with repeated measurements of both variables obtained immediately following the intervention. Results: 36 total patients were enrolled. There was a positive correlation between the ICP and the right ONSD (r = 0.255, P = 0.0003) and the ICP and the left ONSD (r = 0.274, P < 0.0001). There was no statistically significant relationship between the change in either the ICP and the right ONSD (r −0.2 P = 0.282) or left ONSD (r 0.05 P = 0.805). The location of the lesion in the brain appears to significantly affect discordance between the ONSD and the ICP. Conclusions: Ultrasound of the ONSD has shown promise as both a marker of elevated ICP and as a method to identify changes in pressure. Although the size of the ONSD and the measurement of ICP were correlated in our study, the ability to follow changes in ICP was not statistically significant. This indicates that use of ultrasound to track changes in ICP cannot be generalized and may be limited to specific circumstances. The location of the intracranial pathology appears to be a significant factor in discordance between the ICP and ONS diameter.