Evaluating Live Virtual Chalk Talks as a Teaching Tool for Medical Students on a Dermatology Clerkship.

The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted a continued need for innovative virtual teaching methods. Chalk talks, or brief illustrated interactive talks, are easily made virtual with an online whiteboard. We evaluated the efficacy of a live virtual chalk talk curriculum for medical students on their dermatology clerkship. A curriculum of one to three 1-h chalk talks was designed on the following topics: papulosquamous diseases, erythroderma, and immunobullous diseases. Talks were delivered monthly via Zoom to dermatology clerkship students. Pre- and post-talk surveys were administered to assess knowledge, confidence, and satisfaction. Compared with pre-talk, students (n = 18) achieved a greater percentage of possible points on knowledge assessment questions after the talks (41.0 ± 27.7% versus 90.4 ± 18.4%, p < 0.001). As assessed on a Likert scale (1 = not at all confident, 5 = extremely confident), students became more confident in differentiating conditions within each disease group and working up the conditions (2.02 ± 0.53 versus 3.53 ± 0.55, p < 0.001, and 2.09 ± 0.44 versus 3.76 ± 0.89, p < 0.001, respectively). Qualitative responses showed that students appreciated the student-teacher interactions. In conclusion, we found that live chalk talks are an effective and engaging way to teach dermatology to medical students in the virtual setting. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40670-023-01781-4.

Comparison of Preprint Postings of Randomized Clinical Trials on COVID-19 and Corresponding Published Journal Articles: A Systematic Review.

Importance: Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) on COVID-19 are increasingly being posted as preprints before publication in a scientific, peer-reviewed journal. Objective: To assess time to journal publication for COVID-19 RCT preprints and to compare differences between pairs of preprints and corresponding journal articles. Evidence Review: This systematic review used a meta-epidemiologic approach to conduct a literature search using the World Health Organization COVID-19 database and Embase to identify preprints published between January 1 and December 31, 2021. This review included RCTs with human participants and research questions regarding the treatment or prevention of COVID-19. For each preprint, a literature search was done to locate the corresponding journal article. Two independent reviewers read the full text, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool. Time to publication was analyzed using a Cox proportional hazards regression model. Differences between preprint and journal article pairs in terms of outcomes, analyses, results, or conclusions were described. Statistical analysis was performed on October 17, 2022. Findings: This study included 152 preprints. As of October 1, 2022, 119 of 152 preprints (78.3%) had been published in journals. The median time to publication was 186 days (range, 17-407 days). In a multivariable model, larger sample size and low risk of bias were associated with journal publication. With a sample size of less than 200 as the reference, sample sizes of 201 to 1000 and greater than 1000 had hazard ratios (HRs) of 1.23 (95% CI, 0.80-1.91) and 2.19 (95% CI, 1.36-3.53) for publication, respectively. With high risk of bias as the reference, medium-risk articles with some concerns for bias had an HR of 1.77 (95% CI, 1.02-3.09); those with a low risk of bias had an HR of 3.01 (95% CI, 1.71-5.30). Of the 119 published preprints, there were differences in terms of outcomes, analyses, results, or conclusions in 65 studies (54.6%). The main conclusion in the preprint contradicted the conclusion in the journal article for 2 studies (1.7%). Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that there is a substantial time lag from preprint posting to journal publication. Preprints with smaller sample sizes and high risk of bias were less likely to be published. Finally, although differences in terms of outcomes, analyses, results, or conclusions were observed for preprint and journal article pairs in most studies, the main conclusion remained consistent for the majority of studies.

Development and performance of a point-of-care rapid antigen test for detection of SARS-COV-2 variants.

Background: SARS-CoV-2 antigen-based tests are well-calibrated to infectiousness and have a critical role to play in the COVID-19 public health response. We report the development and performance of a unique lateral flow immunoassay (LFA). Methods: Combinations of several monoclonal antibodies targeting multiple antigenic sites on the SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid protein (NP) were isolated, evaluated, and chosen for the development of a LFA termed CoV-SCAN (BioMedomics, Inc.). Clinical point-of-care studies in symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals were conducted to evaluate positive predictive agreement (PPA) and negative predictive agreement (NPA) with RT-PCR as comparator. Results: In laboratory testing, CoV-SCAN detected 14 recombinant N-proteins of SARS-CoV-2 variants with sensitivity in the range of 0.2-3.2 ng/mL, and 10 authentic SARS-CoV-2 variants with sensitivity in the range of 1.6-12.5 TCID50/swab. No cross reactivity was observed with other human coronaviruses or other respiratory pathogens. In clinical point-of-care testing on 148 individuals over age 2 with symptoms of ≤5 days, PPA was 87.2% (CI 95: 78.3-94.8%) and NPA was 100% (CI 95: 94.2-100%). In another 884 asymptomatic individuals, PPA was 85.7% (CI 95: 42.1-99.6%) and 99.7% (99.0-99.9%). Overall, CoV-SCAN detected over 97.2% of specimens with CT values <30 and 93.8% of nasal swab specimens with the Omicron variant, even within the first 2 days after symptom onset. Conclusions: The unique construction of CoV-SCAN using two pairs of monoclonal antibodies has resulted in a test with high performance that remains durable across multiple variants in both laboratory and clinical evaluations. CoV-SCAN should identify almost all individuals harboring infectious SARS-CoV-2. Summary: Unique construction of a point-of-care rapid antigen test using two pairs of monoclonal antibodies has led to good performance that remained durable across multiple variants in laboratory and clinical evaluations. Test should identify almost all individuals harboring infectious SARS-CoV-2.