Clinical medicine (London, England)
-
Approximately 20% of sepsis cases are thought to occur in patients with cancer. Thus, such patients are an important cohort to be represented and characterised among sepsis trials. ⋯ In this opinion article, we discuss our findings that suggest that patients with cancer are being under-represented in sepsis trials, often with an unclear rationale. We question the validity of generalising results from sepsis trials to heterogenous cancer populations and call for wider inclusion of patients with cancer to bridge this knowledge gap in sepsis management.
-
We present the results of the 2022 Census of the Federation of Royal Colleges of Physicians of Edinburgh, Glasgow and London on whether physicians undertake research and the barriers they have encountered. 40% of physicians reported that they undertook research alongside their clinical work. Multivariate analysis of the responses showed that men were 1.6 times more likely to say they undertake research than women. The main barriers to undertaking research were having enough time, organisational factors and a lack of confidence. In this opinion piece we discuss some of the challenges and how they could be addressed.
-
A recent opinion article in Clinical Medicine promoted a new preference-based algorithm to allocate training places for the UK Foundation Programme Office (UKFPO). This replaced the previous process, which ranked candidates based on medical school academic achievement (the educational performance measure; EPM) and the score on a situational judgement test (SJT). Although not without risks, we believe that the new system has positive potential. ⋯ Here, we provide an example of how the general evidence base and conceptual understanding of the validity of SJTs for medical selection is poorly understood. We highlight important research findings that were not cited by Sam et al and provide what we believe is a more balanced and accurate interpretation of the evidence base relating the UKFPO SJT, and SJTs used in medical selection in general. We do this with particular reference to the validity of such tools in this context, as well as their potential impact on under-represented groups in medicine, compared with other selection assessments.