ABSTRACT
Background: Combined clinical and research training is common in residency programs outside emergency medicine (EM), and these pathways are particularly valuable for combined MD/PhD graduates planning to pursue a career as a physician-scientist. However, EM departments may not know what resources to provide these trainees during residency to create research-focused, productive, future faculty, and trainees may not know which programs support their goal of becoming a physician-scientist in EM. The objective of this study was to describe research training and resources available to MD/PhD graduates in EM residency training with a focus on dedicated research pathways. Methods: This study was a cross-sectional inventory conducted through an electronic survey of EM residency program directors. We sought to identify dedicated MD/PhD research training pathways, with a focus on both resources and training priorities. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize survey responses. Results: We collected 192 survey responses (69.6% response rate). Among respondents, 41 programs (21.4%) offered a research pathway/track, 52 (27.4%) offered a research fellowship, 22 (11.5%) offered both a residency research pathway/track and a research fellowship, and two (1.0%) offered a dedicated EM physician-scientist training pathway. Most programs considered research a priority and were enthusiastic about interviewing applicants planning a research career, but recruitment of physician-scientist applicants was not generally prioritized. Conclusions: Some EM residency programs offer combined clinical and mentored research training for prospective physician-scientists, and nearly all residency programs considered research important. Future work will focus on improving the EM physician-scientist pipeline by optimizing pathways available to trainees during residency and fellowship.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: COVID-19 continues to spread throughout the world. Real-time reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) is used to diagnose COVID-19, with its cycle threshold (Ct) value inversely related to the viral load. The association between Ct values and COVID-19 related outcomes has been studied in the hospital setting but less so in the community. We aimed to estimate the association between Ct values and the severity of community-diagnosed COVID-19 to provide evidence on the utility of Ct testing in this setting. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study based on data from Israel's largest health organization. The study population included 34,658 individuals who tested positive for COVID-19 by RT-PCR and had available Ct values between June 1st and December 21st, 2020. Outcomes included COVID-19 related symptoms, hospitalization, severe disease, and death. Ct values were modelled both as discrete and continuous exposures. RESULTS: After adjusting for known risk factors for severe COVID-19, low Ct values were associated with symptomatic disease (odds ratio [OR]: 1.51; 95% confidence interval [CI]:1.21-1.84), hospitalization (OR: 1.27; 95%CI: 1.12-1.49), severe disease (OR: 1.80; 95%CI: 1.43-2.27), and death (OR: 1.64; 95%CI: 1.06-2.59). By modelling the exposure as continuous, we noticed a dose-response relationship, with the risk gradually rising with lower Ct values. CONCLUSIONS: This study found a significant association between low Ct values and severe COVID-19 related outcomes, with a dose-response relationship. This suggests that Ct values could be helpful in identifying high-risk patients diagnosed in the community.