BackgroundEffective communication skills are essential in diagnosis and treatment processes and in building the doctor-patient relationship.ObjectiveOur aim was to evaluate the effectiveness of digital education in medical students for communication skills development. Broadly, we assessed whether digital education could improve the quality of future doctors’ communication skills.MethodsWe performed a systematic review and searched seven electronic databases and two trial registries for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster RCTs (cRCTs) published between January 1990 and September 2018. Two reviewers independently screened the citations, extracted data from the included studies, and assessed the risk of bias. We also assessed the quality of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations assessment (GRADE).ResultsWe included 12 studies with 2101 medical students, of which 10 were RCTs and two were cRCTs. The digital education included online modules, virtual patient simulations, and video-assisted oral feedback. The control groups included didactic lectures, oral feedback, standard curriculum, role play, and no intervention as well as less interactive forms of digital education. The overall risk of bias was high, and the quality of evidence ranged from moderate to very low. For skills outcome, meta-analysis of three studies comparing digital education to traditional learning showed no statistically significant difference in postintervention skills scores between the groups (standardized mean difference [SMD]=–0.19; 95% CI –0.9 to 0.52; I2=86%, N=3 studies [304 students]; small effect size; low-quality evidence). Similarly, a meta-analysis of four studies comparing the effectiveness of blended digital education (ie, online or offline digital education plus traditional learning) and traditional learning showed no statistically significant difference in postintervention skills between the groups (SMD=0.15; 95% CI –0.26 to 0.56; I2=86%; N=4 studies [762 students]; small effect size; low-quality evidence). The additional meta-analysis of four studies comparing more interactive and less interactive forms of digital education also showed little or no difference in postintervention skills scores between the two groups (SMD=0.12; 95% CI: –0.09 to 0.33; I2=40%; N=4 studies [893 students]; small effect size; moderate-quality evidence). For knowledge outcome, two studies comparing the effectiveness of blended online digital education and traditional learning reported no difference in postintervention knowledge scores between the groups (SMD=0.18; 95% CI: –0.2 to 0.55; I2=61%; N=2 studies [292 students]; small effect size; low-quality evidence). The findings on attitudes, satisfaction, and patient-related outcomes were limited or mixed. None of the included studies reported adverse outcomes or economic evaluation of the interventions.ConclusionsWe found low-quality evidence showing that digital education is as effective as traditional learning in medical students’ communication...

Background: Medical schools differ, particularly in their teaching, but it is unclear whether such differences matter, although influential claims are often made. The Medical School Differences (MedDifs) study brings together a wide range of measures of UK medical schools, including postgraduate performance, fitness to practise issues, specialty choice, preparedness, satisfaction, teaching styles, entry criteria and institutional factors. Method: Aggregated data were collected for 50 measures across 29 UK medical schools. Data include institutional history (e.g. rate of production of hospital and GP specialists in the past), curricular influences (e.g.

Background: What subjects UK medical schools teach, what ways they teach subjects, and how much they teach those subjects is unclear. Whether teaching differences matter is a separate, important question. This study provides a detailed picture of timetabled undergraduate teaching activity at 25 UK medical schools, particularly in relation to problem-based learning (PBL). Method: The Analysis of Teaching of Medical Schools (AToMS) survey used detailed timetables provided by 25 schools with standard 5-year courses. Timetabled teaching events were coded in terms of course year, duration, teaching format, and teaching content. Ten schools used PBL. Teaching times from timetables were validated against two other studies that had assessed GP teaching and lecture, seminar, and tutorial times. Results: A total of 47,258 timetabled teaching events in the academic year 2014/2015 were analysed, including SSCs (student-selected components) and elective studies. A typical UK medical student receives 3960 timetabled hours of teaching during their 5-year course. There was a clear difference between the initial 2 years which mostly contained basic medical science content and the later 3 years which mostly consisted of clinical teaching, although some clinical teaching occurs in the first 2 years. Medical schools differed in duration, format, and content of teaching. Two main factors underlay most of the variation between schools, Traditional vs PBL teaching and Structured vs Unstructured teaching. A curriculum map comparing medical schools was constructed using those factors. PBL schools differed on a number of measures, having more PBL teaching time, fewer lectures, more GP teaching, less surgery, less formal teaching of basic science, and more sessions with unspecified content. Discussion: UK medical schools differ in both format and content of teaching. PBL and non-PBL schools clearly differ, albeit with substantial variation within groups, and overlap in the middle. The important question of whether differences in teaching matter in terms of outcomes is analysed in a companion study (MedDifs) which examines how teaching differences relate to university infrastructure, entry requirements, student perceptions, and outcomes in Foundation Programme and postgraduate training.

Cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging is a versatile tool that has established itself as the reference method for functional assessment and tissue characterisation. CMR helps to diagnose, monitor disease course and sub-phenotype disease states. Several emerging CMR methods have the potential to offer a personalised medicine approach to treatment. CMR tissue characterisation is used to assess myocardial oedema, inflammation or thrombus in various disease conditions. CMR derived scar maps have the potential to inform ablation therapy—both in atrial and ventricular arrhythmias. Quantitative CMR is pushing boundaries with motion corrections in tissue characterisation and first-pass perfusion. Advanced tissue characterisation by imaging the myocardial fibre orientation using diffusion tensor imaging (DTI), has also demonstrated novel insights in patients with cardiomyopathies. Enhanced flow assessment using four-dimensional flow (4D flow) CMR, where time is the fourth dimension, allows quantification of transvalvular flow to a high degree of accuracy for all four-valves within the same cardiac cycle. This review discusses these emerging methods and others in detail and gives the reader a foresight of how CMR will evolve into a powerful clinical tool in offering a precision medicine approach to treatment, diagnosis, and detection of disease.

Objectives We sought to systematically review the evidence supporting the role of drug coated balloons (DCBs) in the treatment of coronary bifurcation lesions. Background DCBs are emerging as an attractive alternative treatment strategy for treating coronary bifurcations due to simplifying the approach and reducing rates of stent related complications. We systematically reviewed the evidence for DCB use in coronary bifurcations and conducted a focused meta-analysis on late lumen loss in the side branch comparing DCB and plain old balloon angioplasty (POBA). Methods This study was conducted in line with the PRISMA statement. All studies (including both RCTs and observational studies, excluding case reports) using DCB as part of a bifurcation strategy were included in this review. A literature search identified a total of ten studies for inclusion. A focused meta-analysis was undertaken for the use of DCB in side-branch compared with POBA. Mean late lumen loss was used with a random effects model due to heterogeneity. Results DCB was found to be superior to POBA for side branch treatment in bifurcations (p = 0.01). There are four studies that investigated the use of DCB for main branch treatment in a bifurcation, with evidence supporting its safety in main branches of bifurcation lesions, while prospective observational studies have demonstrated favourable target lesion revascularisation rates. Conclusion Although there is a lack of robust RCTs comparing DCBs with current generation DES, DCBs appear safe in main branch bifurcation lesions with improved side branch late lumen loss when compared with DES or POBA.