Injections All the Rage in Football, Whether They Work or Not

June 24th, 2010

All eyes are on the World Cup in South Africa as some of football’s most-watched players are nursing injuries that will likely keep them out of play.

Michael Ballack, Germany’s captain, is suffering torn ligaments in his right ankle; Ghana’s Michael Essien and Nigeria’s John Obi Mikel are out with knee injuries, as is Spain’s top striker, Fernando Torres.

Most of these players’ injuries will probably cause them to miss the tournament, which began on June 11. But for players whose cartilaginous injuries place them on the borderline between fit and sidelined, some sports physicians are increasingly looking to injectable treatments

Read the full article HERE

- debs

Soccer’s World Cup: A Science Mecca?

June 24th, 2010

”Hidden among the millions of vuvuzela-blowing spectators in South Africa for the 2010 World Cup games may be a surprising number of medical and scientific researchers: The tournament has attracted not merely die-hard fans but people interested in the physics, physiology, psychology, and even epidemiology of the globally beloved sport.”

Read the full article HERE

- debs

More Medicine on Twitter

May 25th, 2010
Elsevier News now has a presence of Twitter. It would be possible to autotweet every single issue of a journal or even every article individually, but it would not be possible to keep up with the feed in a meaningful way. It is doubtful that this would really help any clinician or research in either actively searching for evidence or keeping up to date in their practice. Instead, a more focussed view is taken. There hasn’t yet been much more interest in Twitter from Big Pharma. This may change in the future. Health Business Blog wrote one post a few months ago, and another shortly afterwards following progress. The limitation with microblogging’s focus on Twitter remains that it is a centralised service vulnerable to downtime due to too much traffic or potential cyber attacks. There is not yet any great solution, although Backupify is available to backup tweets and Google has rolled up its improved Twitter search this week.

- Dom

Mnemocine

April 8th, 2010

Mnemonics are at the heart of medical education. Indeed, several books about them have been published. Mnemocine is a new online repository, its name being a portmanteau of mnemonic and medicine. Some of the are quite biochemically based and outside the remit of some undergraduate medical courses. One good one is the muscles innervated by the radial nerve being BEST:

- Brachioradialis
- Extensors of the forearm
- Supinator
- Triceps brachii

- Dom

UKFPO error 2010

April 8th, 2010

North-East Thames is a competitive Foundation School and a system error may have directly affected the applications of 34 students. Six of these students may be in an entirely different foundation school due to their not receiving sufficient points. It is possible that this may have a knock-on effect for other students who may be displaced from their first choice of North-East Thames to a different Foundation School. UKFPO have been impressively quick in recognising and responding to the problem.

SENT ON BEHALF OF PROFESSOR DEREK GALLEN

 

This email has been sent to: Postgraduate Deans, Foundation School Directors, Foundation School Managers, Rules Group Members, Heads of Medical Schools, Medical Schools Council, UKFPO, Medical Students Board, and BMA Medical Students Committee

For information please find below the statement sent to the BMA news regarding the recent quartile score administrative error which affected a small number of students from Barts and the London Medical School.

North East Thames Foundation School Apologises for

Foundation Programme 2010 Recruitment Administrative Error

Applicants to the Foundation Programme 2010 were able to log into their online accounts on Friday, 19 February to see a breakdown of their application scores. A small proportion of students from Barts and the London Medical School were surprised to find that the academic quartile scores provided to them by Barts were different from those they saw on the online application system.

Investigations at the weekend and on Monday revealed that there were process and administration issues at both Barts and the London Medical School and North East Thames Foundation School (NETFS).

Before potential applicants to the Foundation Programme can enrol online, medical schools must provide details of eligible students to their local foundation school by a set deadline in order for them to be pre-loaded onto the system. This year, Barts and the London were unable to provide their quartile rankings by the deadline because some results for students re-sitting exams were only available after this deadline. In order to ensure that their students could enrol at the same time as all other students, all Barts students were uploaded into the application system with a provisional score of 34, the lowest quartile ranking, with an agreement they would be amended when the final data came through from the medical school.

When the medical school sent through the final scores on a spreadsheet, administrative staff at the North East Thames Foundation School input the new scores, with the exception of one page of the spreadsheet which had been missed in error. The result is that 34 students whose academic quartile scores were on the missing spreadsheet page are lower than they should have been. The scores of six of these students, who didn’t get into their first choice foundation school, will be reviewed and NETFS will work with other foundation schools to place these doctors in the school they should have been allocated to as vacancies arise from withdrawals and finals fails.

All of those students affected have been contacted by NETFS and informed of the steps being taken to ensure they receive the help and support they need.

Professor Derek Gallen, National Director of the UK Foundation Programme Office, who runs the national Foundation Programme recruitment process on behalf of the four UK health departments said,

“As soon as our student advisors contacted us on Saturday, we began looking into score discrepancies as a matter of urgency with the online hosts, NETFS and Barts and the London. The UKFPO has asked that all foundation schools cooperate with NETFS to help those affected by this error. Of the 28 students that got into their first choice school, but with a lower programme allocation than they may have otherwise received; the UKFPO has asked that foundation schools give these students preferential allocations for their F2 year.”

Dr Michael Glynn, Foundation School Director for NETFS, said:

“We apologise unreservedly for this error. This has not been an error made by the UKFPO, or by the online application system. It was human error, plain and simple, between the medical school and local foundation school. This does not excuse it, certainly, and NEFTS will do everything it can to help those students affected. We are also working with Barts and the London to ensure this does not happen again.

Regards,

Professor Derek Gallen

National Director

UK Foundation Programme Office

- Dom

ELSEVIER STUDENT REPRESENTATIVE SCHEME

February 19th, 2010

What’s it all about?

 As you may already know, Elsevier is the largest publisher of Medical, Dentistry, Nursing and Allied Health titles in the world today. We publish books and electronic resources under the imprints which include Mosby, Churchill Livingstone, Saunders and Butterworth-Heinemann to name a few.

As a student representative (or “rep”) you will be able to get directly involved in the whole of the publishing process – from early project development right through to spreading the word about new titles on publication. The programme is designed to enable us to better understand your course trends and your textbook and courseware needs, as well as those of your lecturers and course directors. With your co-operation and feedback we hope to get a better idea of which products you like, which you don’t and how you think things could be improved in the future. After all you are the people who are using the books! It also gives us a better indication of how we might get closer to your institution community through events and activities for which our support/involvement may be appropriate.

What’s the deal?
The Student Rep Programme is designed to help you specifically with your studies as well as being of benefit to Elsevier. The minimum commitment we ask is a few hours of your time each academic year and in return you will receive your choice of FREE textbooks from our extensive list of publications up to the value of £50. There is also opportunity to earn extra points (which can also be converted into books) on a monthly basis through responding to ‘Tasks’ sent via our monthly email communication and by doing additional activities such as focus groups, writing book reviews, generating word of mouth etc. But that’s not all, we are always open to suggestions and new ideas and really encourage innovation in the scheme so feel free to come to us with your idea’s no matter how outlandish that may seem! Also, perhaps you would be interested in seeing what we do, student reps have had the opportunity to take part in research, focus group events and present at Elsevier sales conferences. We are also happy to provide a letter for your portfolio to outline your involvement with the scheme.

What do I have to do?

To get your first 50 points you need to:
Send us your recommended reading list for this year
Fill in a questionnaire about your university and course
Put up posters and hand out catalogues/flyers

You can also earn extra points by organising other activities

How do I claim my books?

Each quarter you will be sent a statement via email telling you how many points you have earned, you can then make your book selection and send it to d.watkins@elsevier.com and your books will be posted out to you.

Who will be my contact?
Your main contact will be in the Elsevier Marketing Department, is Debs Watkins and you can contec Debs at: d.watkins@elsevier.com, you will also get to know the Elsevier Sales Representative for your institution who will also be in contact with you.

Terms & Conditions

Elsevier reserve the right not to send all the free books in the case of no contribution from a student representative and discontinue the relationship at any point.

The year is from January to December – all points must be claimed in the year they are earned, any points left over at the end of the academic year will be lost.

The maximum points that can be earned in one year is 150, the £50 worth of books given on completion of part on is considered separate from any other points earnings

You cannot combine cash with points so the value of the books you request has to be equal too or less than the number of points you have accrued. You can only claim your books on a quarterly basis, you can carry points over during the year.

Tasks cannot be started without the permission of your Elsevier contact. No points will be given for tasks carried out with out the agreement of Elsevier.

By sending us your book reviews you are consenting to allow any part of it to be used in promotional material.

- debs

Have your say

February 17th, 2010

Commentary on the Internet is notoriously stupid. Pick pretty much any Youtube video and you will see questions being asked about the content which is clearly answered in the description on the right-hand side, or at best a simple Google away. And then asked again. And then asked again. Or you may encounter trolling in its most basic form, where people sitting in front of computer screens freed from their built-in social constraints of politeness and fear of reprisals unleash pure vitriol in the form of typing before they’ve had any time to think. People’s genuine opinions approach sheer ridiculousness in these situations. Indeed, Poe’s Law of the Internet states that “Without a winking smily or other blatant display of humour it is impossible to create a parody of Fundamentalism that someone won’t mistake for the real thing. “Speak you’re branes” is a good example of a blog (there are others) which is dedicated to offering up the prime cuts of un-thought-through commentary from the dregs of the Internet.


PHD comics have produced a comic imagining if academic process was as free and open as this. What if half of the comments included “LOL” or “ROFL” in them or had far too many exclamation marks? What if people merely commented to try to direct traffic to their own website (or academic work)? What if all the rest of the comments were by semi-literate conspiracy theorists or spammers? Interestingly, this is partially the way scientific peer review is headed. In some journals, peer review is already done entirely online. The Lancet, for example, uses one page with simple instructions for the submission of all papers including correspondence. Peer review is then done by experts in the field who will not be told whom they are reviewing, although in some cases they may have a very good idea. Funny as it may seem, but that’s exactly the way peer review appears to be heading. Scientific peer review will continue to be necessary for respectability. Many different publishers of academic journals are encouraging you to bookmark their articles.

Back in the bad old days of web 1.0, if you liked a website you would add it to your bookmarks or favourites so you could return to it later. There would be no way of knowing if it had been updated other than to return to it, and if your hard drive broke then you would lose all your links. Online bookmarking is the web 2.0 equivalent of this. Links are saved to Automating posting of an article to these services has taken off in all kinds of websites and blogs. Even Google Reader is now trying to integrate a degree of sociability into its automated looking through lots and lots websites by enabling users to “like” posts to allow other users to see what’s popular, and for people to be able to make a statement about what they like and have people “follow” them. As persistent use of the Internet is now deemed normal and socially acceptable

CiteULike, Complore, Connotea specialise in bookmarking and working together on journals and other resources related to academia, but other services which are used by mere mortals are often linked to, including Delicious, Digg, Reddit, Technorati, Facebook and Twitter. Yes, Twitter. I never thought I’d see the day when reputable journals would be encouraging you to share papers at the click of a button on Twitter. Shame it’s blocked in so many NHS trusts. I don’t think there’s going to be much success in a strategy of pointing out the education value of Twitter to Trust administrators for the time being. Maybe in a few years. In a few years, everyone will probably have a Blackberry, iPhone or equivalent so what the Trust decide to block will be moot.

- Dom

Eating and Tweeting

February 17th, 2010

Billed as the ‘easiest food diary’ you’ll ever keep, Tweet What You Eat aims to make it simple. It is notoriously difficult for patients to remember to take their tablets. Having been a participant in a clinical trial before I realise this. It must be even harder if you have to keep track of what you eat without a dedicated nurse there to do it for you. Sunshine is the best disinfectant and openness is essential for transparency. From a trial diary of what you have been doing, it is not possible to see if entries have been made days after when patients may have ‘forgotten’ or indeed genuinely forgotten what they have eaten. It is not possible to edit what has already been posted on Twitter unless you are some kind of super hacker. Once information is there, it is there, and in the public domain. Although looking at what people are eating at the moment, I don’t feel that encouraged…

- Dom

Hubmedicated

February 17th, 2010

I never really appreciated the full use of the many of the add-on tools that can be used in conjunction with PubMedPubMed remains more reliable than Google Scholar and all other pretenders to its throne as the best place to look for papers i.e. it’s the gold standard for finding medical research and hence for making evidence-based decisions. However, although it contains all that the most brilliant academics and the most cutting-edge consultants in the world know, it has not always been easy to find this information. It comes equipped with online training, which I do find myself coming back to now and again. Ben Goldacre has published a very quick guide to using Hubmed, which I did not really understand before. It is reasonably simple to use PubMed by itself to create RSS feeds from customised searches, but it seems to make a lot more sense with HubMed. If nothing else, it is a less forbidding front-end to the sum of human knowledge.

- Dom

Plain JANE

February 17th, 2010

JANE stands for Journal/Author Name Estimator. It is one of a series of novel tools coming online to help researchers get their work published. Its primary use is to find which journals are most likely to publish work, so is aimed at a researcher holding a completed manuscript, or nearly completed manuscript and aiming to have it published in a journal. The primary use is typing in keywords, then a list of appropriate journals will be listed alongside. There are additional options which can be completed. The Biosemantics Group is the result of a collaboration between two Dutch universities: Erasmus University Rotterdam and Leiden University Medical Center. Work besides JANE done by the group includes the EU-ADR project to create a Europe-wide system to detect adverse drug reactions (ADRs) and INFOBIOMED to look at synergy between bioinformatics and medical informatics at a European level. Medical informatics describes use of information technology in medicine, and bioinformatics describes use of information technology in molecular biology, so really this is related to the use of IT in Medicine, which is only going to increase in coming years.

- Dom