Background Ultrasound was first introduced in clinical dermatology in 1979. Since that time, ultrasound technology has continued to develop along with its popularity and utility. Main text summary Today, high-frequency ultrasound (HFUS), or ultrasound using a frequency of at least 10 megahertz (MHz), allows for high-resolution imaging of the skin from the stratum corneum to the deep fascia. This non-invasive and easy-to-interpret tool allows physicians to assess skin findings in real-time, enabling enhanced diagnostic, management, and surgical capabilities. In this review, we discuss how HFUS fits into the landscape of skin imaging. We provide a brief history of its introduction to dermatology, explain key principles of ultrasonography, and review its use in characterizing normal skin, common neoplasms of the skin, dermatologic diseases and cosmetic dermatology. Conclusion As frequency advancements in ultrasonography continue, the broad applications of this imaging modality will continue to grow. HFUS is a fast, safe and readily available tool that can aid in diagnosing, monitoring and treating dermatologic conditions by providing more objective assessment measures.

No abstract

Introduction: Despite increasing emphasis on LGBTQ health in medical education, evidence-based training on LGBTQ patient care in dermatology is lacking. We designed an interactive online didactic session on dermatologic care of LGBTQ patients for medical students and dermatology residents. Methods: Session content was based on continuing medical education articles and incorporated preexisting LGBTQ-inclusive policies, environments, and videos. We implemented the session via a web-based videoconferencing platform as part of a preexisting resident lecture series. We began with a 90-minute lecture on LGBTQ health care disparities and dermatologists' roles, best practices for providing inclusive care, and dermatologic health concerns and screening recommendations in LGBTQ populations. To solidify knowledge and promote practice of learned skills, a 30-minute interactive role-playing session followed where participants acted as observer, patient, or provider in three distinct clinical scenarios pertaining to dermatologic care of LGBTQ patients. Participants completed baseline and follow-up surveys, which included a psychometrically validated clinical skills scale and an ad hoc knowledge assessment. Results: Baseline and follow-up scores from the clinical skills scale increased overall (0.7; 95% CI, 0.5-0.9; p < .001), in self-reported clinical preparedness (1.1; 95% CI, 0.5-1.6; p = .001), and in basic knowledge (0.8; 95% CI, 0.3-1.4; p = .003). Discussion: An online interactive didactive session on dermatological care of LGBTQ patients increased participants' clinical preparedness and basic knowledge. Implementation of similar sessions at other institutions can improve gaps in preparing residents and medical students in dermatological care of LGBTQ patients.

Objective To systematically review the evidence for the use of cognitive screening tools for adults with postlingual hearing loss. Data Sources PubMed, Embase, Scopus, PsycINFO (EBSCO), CINAHL (EBSCO), and CENTRAL (Cochrane Library) electronic databases were searched from inception until October 4, 2018. Review Methods Articles were reviewed for inclusion by 2 independent reviewers. The references of included articles were hand-searched for additional relevant articles. Data were extracted by 2 independent extractors. Results Of 2092 articles imported from the search, 81 were included for the review. Nearly a third (31%, n = 25) included patients with profound hearing loss. In total, 23 unique tools were used for 105 unique applications. The Mini Mental Status Exam (MMSE) was the most commonly used (54%, n = 55), followed by the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) (19%, n = 10). Nearly half of the tools were used to define patient inclusion or exclusion in a study (48%, n = 50), followed by examination of a change after an intervention (26%, n = 27). Two articles attempted to study the validity of the MMSE and MoCA for screening patients with mild to moderate hearing loss and found mixed effects of the auditory components. There were no validation studies identified from the search. Conclusion Many different cognitive screening tools have been used to study patients with postlingual hearing loss. The effects of the auditory components of these tools may be deleterious but ultimately remain unclear from the available evidence. To date, there has been no validation of any cognitive screening tool to be used for adults with postlingual hearing loss.

No abstract