No abstract

IMPORTANCE Unverifiable publications in applications for ophthalmology residencies could be a serious concern if they represent publication dishonesty. OBJECTIVE To determine the rate of unverifiable publications among applicants offered an interview. DESIGN Retrospective review of 322 ophthalmology residency applications for entering classes 2012 to 2017 at Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, Tennessee.INTERVENTIONS Full-length publications reported in the applications were searched in PubMed, Google, Google Scholar, and directly on the journal's website. Applications were deemed unverifiable if there was no record of the publication by any of these means or if substantial discrepancies existed, such as incorrect authorship, incorrect journal, or a meaningful discrepancy in title or length (full-length article vs abstract).MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Inability to locate publication with search, incorrect author position, applicant not listed as an author, article being an abstract and not a published paper, substantial title discrepancy suggesting an alternative project, and incorrect journal. RESULTSOf the 322 applicants offered interviews during the 6-year study period, 22 (6.8%) had 24 unverifiable publications. Two hundred thirty-nine of these applicants (74.2%) reported at least 1 qualifying publication; of this group, 22 (9.2%) had an unverifiable publication. The applications with unverifiable publications were evenly distributed across the years of the study (range, 2-6 per cycle; Pearson χ 2 5 = 3.65; P = .60). Two applicants had 2 unverifiable publications each. Two of the 22 applicants (9.1%) with unverifiable publications were graduates of medical schools outside the United States. Among the unverifiable publications, the most common reason was inability to locate the publication (13 [54%]). Additional issues included abstract rather than full-length publication (5 [20.8%]), incorrect author position (4 [16.7%]), applicant not listed as an author on the publication (1 [4.2%]), and substantial title discrepancy (1 [4.2%]). One listed publication had an incorrect author position and incorrect journal (1 [4.2%]).

Purpose of review Retinal disease can manifest with visual symptoms similar to those which result from central nervous system disorders. We provide a framework for considering retinal causes of common visual complaints presenting to a neurology clinic. Recent findings Technological advances have afforded quicker detection and a more thorough understanding of these retinal entities and are crucial to consider when evaluating visual complaints in the neurology clinic. Summary It is essential to maintain a working knowledge of common retinal conditions that symptomatically overlap with common neurologic conditions. Furthermore, the ophthalmoscopic exam and retinal imaging modalities can both aid in the diagnosis and workup of visual complaints and neurologic disease.

No abstract

Purpose: To present the case of a family with a novel PRPH2/RDS mutation. Methods: A case report of a 44-year-old woman and her immediate family, including the father and a sister who shared her PRPH2/RDS mutation.Results: A 44-year-old woman presented with examination findings consistent with a butterfly-type pattern dystrophy. A sister had a similar butterfly-type dystrophy, whereas their father had a severe cone-rod dystrophy. Genetic testing revealed the same novel PRPH2/RDS mutation in all three affected individuals, suggesting that this single mutation can produce at least two disparate retinal disease phenotypes.Conclusion: This case describes a novel p.Y225X nonsense mutation in the PRPH2/ RDS gene and demonstrates that it is both pathologic and capable of significant phenotypic variability.