With the emergence of electronic medical records and patient portals, patients are increasingly able to access their health records, including laboratory reports. However, laboratory reports are usually written for clinicians rather than patients, who may not understand much of the information in the report. While several professional guidelines define the content of test reports, there are no guidelines to inform the development of a patient-friendly laboratory report. In this Opinion, we consider patient barriers to comprehension of lab results and suggest several options to reformat the lab report to promote understanding of test results and their significance to patient care, and to reduce patient anxiety and confusion. In particular, patients’ health literacy, genetic literacy, e-health literacy and risk perception may influence their overall understanding of lab results and affect patient care. We propose four options to reformat lab reports: 1) inclusion of an interpretive summary section, 2) a summary letter to accompany the lab report, 3) development of a patient user guide to be provided with the report, and 4) a completely revised patient-friendly report. The complexity of genetic and genomic test reports poses a major challenge to patient understanding that warrants the development of a report more appropriate for patients.

We report 10 cases of donor cell leukemia (DCL). All cases except the case of chronic lymphocytic leukemia had anemia, neutropenia, and/or thrombocytopenia when DCL was diagnosed. Eight cases with sex-mismatched hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HCT) showed donor gonosomal complements, suggesting DCL. Clonal cytogenetic abnormalities were detected in 8 cases: 6 were monosomy 7/del(7q). In all 10 cases, engraftment studies confirmed donor cell origin. Retrospective fluorescence in situ hybridization in archived donor cells in 4 cases showed a low level of abnormalities in 2. Of 7 patients with clinical follow-up of 5 months or more, 1 (with acute myeloid leukemia) died of disease; 6 are alive, including 1 with myelodysplastic syndrome with spontaneous remission. Similar to reported cases, we found disproportional sex-mismatched HCTs, suggesting probable underdetection of DCL in sex-matched HCTs. The latency between HCT and DCL ranged from 1 to 193 months (median, 24 months), in keeping with the literature. Analyzing our cases, pooled with reported cases, with survival models showed much shorter latency for malignancy as primary disease, for T-cell large granular lymphocyte leukemia as type of DCL, and for umbilical cord blood as stem cell source.

Bariatric embolization can significantly suppress ghrelin and significantly affect weight gain. Further study is warranted before this technique can be used routinely in humans.

Background There are increasing opportunities for healthcare professionals outside medicine to be involved in and lead clinical research. However, there are few roles within these professions that include time for research. In order to develop such roles, and evaluate effective use of this time, the range of impacts of this clinical academic activity need to be valued and understood by healthcare leaders and managers. To date, these impacts have not been comprehensively explored, but are suggested to extend beyond traditional quantitative impact metrics, such as publications, citations and funding awards. Methods Ten databases, four grey literature repositories and a naïve web search engine were systematically searched for articles reporting impacts of clinical academic activity by healthcare professionals outside medicine. Specifically, this did not include the direct impacts of the research findings, rather the impacts of the research activity. All stages of the review were performed by a minimum of two reviewers and reported impacts were categorised qualitatively according to a modified VICTOR (making Visible the ImpaCT Of Research) framework. Results Of the initial 2704 identified articles, 20 were eligible for inclusion. Identified impacts were mapped to seven themes: impacts for patients; impacts for the service provision and workforce; impacts to research profile, culture and capacity; economic impacts; impacts on staff recruitment and retention; impacts to knowledge exchange; and impacts to the clinical academic. Conclusions Several overlapping sub-themes were identified across the main themes. These included the challenges and benefits of balancing clinical and academic roles, the creation and implementation of new evidence, and the development of collaborations and networks. These may be key areas for organisations to explore when looking to support and increase academic activity among healthcare professionals outside medicine. The modified VICTOR tool is a useful starting point for individuals and organisations to record the impact of their research activity. Further work is needed to explore standardised methods of capturing research impact that address the full range of impacts identified in this systematic review and are specific to the context of clinical academics outside medicine.