Longitudinal Trends and Disparities in Diabetic Retinopathy Within an Aggregate Health Care Network.

Importance: Diabetic retinopathy (DR) is a leading cause of blindness in the US, warranting updates on its prevalence and incidence in the setting of advancements in diabetic care over recent years. Objective: To determine recent trends in DR prevalence stratified by baseline demographics to identify those populations at greater risk. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a cross-sectional epidemiologic evaluation conducted using deidentified data from the large federated TriNetX Analytics health research network composed of 56 health care organizations in the US. Patients from 2015 to 2022 who had an International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Tenth Revision code of type 1 DR (T1DR) or type 2 DR (T2DR) were included in this analysis. Patients were further stratified by age cohorts (20-29 years, 30-39 years, 40-49 years, 50-59 years, 60-69 years, and 70 years or older), race and ethnicity, and sex. Main Outcomes and Measures: Prevalence per 100 000 patients and prevalence odds ratios (ORs) were calculated in Microsoft Excel and Posit (formerly RStudio). Results: A total of 359 126 patients with T1DR or T2DR (mean [SD] age, 67 [14] years; 52% female) were included in this study between January 1, 2015, and December 21, 2022. T1DR increased in prevalence from 2015 to 2022, with T1DR increasing 1.15-fold affecting 70.4 patients per 100 000 in 2022. T2DR increased 1.07-fold affecting 461.7 patients per 100 000 in 2022. For T1DR, the cohort aged 20 to 39 years had the most substantial increase at 4.7 and 1.96 fold. Overall, White males had the largest prevalence ORs of T1DR at 1.41 (95% CI, 1.36-1.47) compared with White females (reference group). In T2DR, patients aged 20 to 39 years again had a 2.5- and 1.6-fold prevalence increase from 2015 to 2022. Regardless of age group, Hispanic males demonstrated larger prevalence OR at 4.08 (95% CI, 3.97-4.19) compared with White females followed by Hispanic females at 2.49 (95% CI, 2.42-2.56), Black males at 2.23 (95% CI, 2.17-2.29), and Black females at 2.00 (95% CI, 1.95-2.05). Conclusion and Relevance: The prevalence of both T1DR and T2DR increased in this network from 2015 to 2022, with individuals aged 20 to 39 years showing large increases. Additionally, T2DR was associated with greater increases in both Hispanic and Black communities. These findings support DR screening in young adults and for T2DR interventions specifically designed for racial and ethnic minoritized patients most affected by disease. Future investigations are warranted to further investigate these trends among young adults.

Anki Flashcards for Radiology Education.

From online textbooks to educational social media posts, digital learning tools are transforming medical education. Spaced repetition programs are a popular tool, with 70% of first-year medical students reporting using the free, open-source flashcard application Anki.1 The Anki program pairs active recall and spaced repetition learning principles with a simple but versatile user interface.2 Spaced repetition flashcard programs such as Anki are uniquely suited to radiology education because they strengthen image-based recall, a necessary skill for radiology trainees to develop. In this review, we will describe the science behind active recall and spaced repetition programs, introduce the Anki platform, and describe future directions for its potential as an educational resource for radiology.

Healthcare price transparency in North America and Europe.

Healthcare price transparency is an effort to inform patient decision-making, but also to decrease prices and their variation across healthcare systems for equivalent medical services. The initiative is meaningful only for medical services that are shoppable-such as imaging examinations-for which patients incur out-of-pocket costs. Therefore, several countries in which patients commonly share a portion of their healthcare costs have been implementing mandates to improve healthcare price transparency. However, the provisional implementation has many issues, especially in the United States, including provider non-compliance and limited accessibility of price transparency tools by the general public. Many of the existing tools are not user-friendly, are difficult to navigate, focus on charges and health plan negotiated rates rather than patients' out-of-pocket costs, and disclose prices on the service level instead of per episode of care. As such, the disclosed amounts are often not reliable. Many price transparency tools also lack valid and measurable quality metrics, which can result in a selection of high-cost care as a proxy for high-value care, as well as an increase in healthcare prices when providers want to imply they offer high-quality care. Nevertheless, the impact of the initiatives on patients' decision-making and healthcare costs remains unclear. While transparency initiatives are patient-centric, efforts should be made to increase patient engagement, provide accurate patient-specific out-of-pocket cost information, compare available treatment and provider alternatives, and couple price information with quality metrics to enable making fully informed decisions.