Informational letters or postcards to initiate remote monitoring among veterans with pacemakers and implantable cardioverter-defibrillators: A randomized, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Remote monitoring (RM) of pacemakers and implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) is a Class 1, Level of Evidence A recommendation because of its multitude of clinical benefits. However, RM adherence rates are suboptimal, precluding patients from achieving these benefits. There is a need for direct-to-patient efforts to improve adherence. METHODS: In this national randomized, controlled trial conducted in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA), 2120 patients with a pacemaker or ICD who had not sent an RM transmission for ≥1 year (and usually ≥3 years) while under VHA care for their device were randomly assigned to be mailed a postcard (n = 1076) or a detailed letter (n = 1044). The postcard described what RM does and its key benefits (reduced mortality and fewer in-person visits). The letter provided a similar message but included more details about RM benefits and the process. The primary outcome was an RM transmission sent within 90 days of mailing, and a secondary outcome was an RM transmission sent within 365 days. RESULTS: The primary outcome was achieved in 121 (11.3%) in the postcard and 96 patients (9.2%) in the letter group (p = .12). The secondary outcome was achieved in 266 (24.7%) and 239 (22.9%), respectively (p = .32). CONCLUSIONS: This randomized trial showed no significant difference in the proportion of chronically non-adherent patients who sent an RM transmission after receiving a low-cost postcard or a detailed, higher-cost letter encouraging their participation in RM. However, as only a minority of patients responded to either, further work is needed to engage patients in the life-saving benefits of RM.

Inter-sexual Mate Competition in Humans: A Historical Example from Seventeenth Century Portugal.

Inter-sexual mate competition occurs any time opposite-sex individuals simultaneously seek to acquire or maintain exclusive access to the same sexual partner. This underappreciated form of mate competition has been anecdotally documented in several avian and mammalian species, and systematically described among Japanese macaques and humans. Here, we extend the concept of inter-sexual mate competition by reassessing a remarkable series of Portuguese letters, penned in 1664 and later discovered and translated by Mott and Assunção (J Homosex 16:91-104, 1989). The letters comprise one side of a correspondence between two males, former lovers who were scrutinized by the Portuguese Inquisition. After ending the relationship, the recipient of the letters was betrothed to a woman, which provoked a jealous response from his jilted male lover and pleas to reunite. We argue that the letters portray a prolonged sequence of inter-sexual mate competition in which a male and female competitor vied for the same man. An established taxonomy of mate competition tactics was applied to the behavior of both competitors illustrating many parallels with contemporary examples of inter-sexual mate competition. Through this comparison, we show that modern mate competition taxonomies can be fruitfully applied to historical texts and that inter-sexual mate competition occurred hundreds of years before the present. Other examples of inter-sexual mate competition are likely to exist in the historical record, providing a rich source of scientific information if appropriate theoretical frameworks are employed. Indeed, any time individuals are attracted to sexual partners who behave in a bisexual manner, then inter-sexual mate competition can ensue with members of the other sex.

Optimising the structure of outpatient clinic letters: insights from a survey of general practitioners and hospital doctors.

Outpatient letters are an essential communication tool in healthcare. Yet doctors receive little training on letter writing and what details recipients consider important. We surveyed 106 hospital doctors and 63 general practitioners (GPs), identifying differences in each group's preferences; GPs preferred more structured, detailed letters. Opportunities for feedback, formal templates and advanced software systems can improve communication in outpatient clinics.

How Prominent Are Gender Bias, Racial Bias, and Score Inflation in Orthopaedic Surgery Residency Recommendation Letters? A Systematic Review.

INTRODUCTION: Letters of recommendation are considered an important factor in the holistic ranking of orthopaedic residency applications. The standardized letter of recommendation (SLOR) was introduced in 2017 in response to the inherent bias and limited comparative value of traditional LORs. It includes standardized questions about an applicant's orthopaedic qualifications, designed to enable fair comparisons among candidates. However, disparate and inconsistent findings have made it difficult to draw meaningful conclusions from individual studies on the SLOR and narrative letter of recommendation. QUESTION/PURPOSES: In this systematic review we asked: (1) What is the distribution of applicant SLOR rating among nine domains and summative scores? (2) Are there applicant characteristics associated with SLOR ratings? (3) Is there gender and racial bias in the SLOR and narrative letter of recommendation? METHODS: PubMed, EBSCO, and Google Scholar electronic databases were queried on March 20, 2023, to identify all studies evaluating SLOR and narrative letter of recommendations between January 1, 2017, and March 20, 2023. Articles that evaluated orthopaedic SLOR or narrative LORs were included. Systematic reviews, case reports, duplicate studies between databases, and grey literature such as abstracts and articles on preprint servers were excluded. Eight studies including 6179 applicants and 18,987 letters of recommendation were included in the final analysis. The applicant classes ranged from years 2014 to 2020. Two reviewers independently evaluated the quality of the included studies using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) tool for cross-sectional studies. The mean JBI score of included studies was 7.4 out of a maximum of 8, with higher scores indicating better quality. The primary outcome was to determine the distribution of applicant SLOR rankings in their summative score. Summative scores were separated into ranked to match, top one-third, middle one-third, lower one-third, and not a fit. Four studies reported the summative SLOR scores of applicants. Our secondary study goal was to assess applicant characteristics associated with SLOR summative scores and assess any bias present in the SLOR or narrative recommendation. Five studies compared SLOR ratings across applicant characteristics including gender, race, USMLE Step 1 score, USMLE Step 2 score, Alpha Omega Alpha (AΩA) membership, clerkship grades, and publications. Gender and racial bias were also assessed across five studies. Four studies utilized a linguistic analysis software to search letters of recommendation for differences in word category use by gender and race. RESULTS: Studies consistently found that a higher percentage of candidates were identified in the top percentile blocks than is mathematically possible. For example, the two studies that tallied the proportion of candidates ranking in the top 10% of applicants found that 36% and 42% were rated as being in the top 10%. Similarly, articles found more than 87% of applicants scored in the top one-third. Studies had mixed results, but in general, they suggested that AΩA status, higher Step 1 scores, and more research publications have a slightly positive association with increased SLOR scores. We found no evidence of gender bias against women, and in fact, most studies evaluating word choices found word choices for women candidates generally were stronger. Similarly, no consistent disparities were identified in word categories utilized in SLORs based on applicant race. CONCLUSION: Most notably, a mathematically impossible proportion of applicants were counted in the top percentiles in letters of recommendation. This compromises readers' abilities to differentiate candidates. Factors like AOA status and research publications displayed a modest positive correlation with SLOR scores. Gender bias against women or candidates from racial minority groups was not evident. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: We suggest that group SLOR authorship, with a consensus assessment by clerkship or residency directors, should be considered. We also recommend the incorporation of mean and SD scores for each letter writer (or group) alongside their letters. Furthermore, studies indicate that submitting all four SLOR letters can substantially improve an applicant's chances of success. We advise students to choose strategically and submit the maximum allowable number of SLORs.

Letters generated by ChatGPT: Author who?

AIM: ChatGPT's role in medical writing is a topic of discussion. I experimented whether ChatGPT almost automatically generates Correspondence or Letter addressed to a "translated" article, and thereby wish to arouse discussion regarding ChatGPT use in medical writing. METHODS: I input an English article of mine into ChatGPT, tasking it with generating an English Disagreement Letter (Letter 1). Next, I tasked ChatGPT with translating the manuscript addressed to from English-French-Spanish-German. Then, I once again tasked ChatGPT with generating an English Disagreement Letter addressed to a German manuscript (triplicate translated manuscript) (Letter 2). RESULTS: Letters 1 and 2 are readable and reasonable, shooting the point that the author (myself) felt as the weakness of the article. Letters addressed to French (single translation) and to Spanish (double translation) and longer Letters (corresponding to Letters 1 and 2) are also readable, and thus stand. CONCLUSIONS: Solely based on this experiment, one may be able to write a letter even without understanding the meaning of the paper being addressed, let alone the language of the paper. Although this humble experiment does not conclude anything, I plea for a comprehensive discussion on the implications of these findings.

Do certain phrases in letters of recommendation predict success in fellowship performance?

BACKGROUND: Letters of recommendation (LORs) are a valued, yet imperfect tool. Program directors (PDs) score phrases such as give my highest recommendation and top 5 to 10% of students as positive. Although positive phrases are valued by PDs, there is no evidence that these phrases predict performance. We attempt to identify whether 12 specific phrases found in letters of recommendation predict future performance of fellows. METHODS: LORs were evaluated for 12 select phrases and statements. Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) status, Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK) score, and whether the letter writer was personally known to our admission's committee were also categorized. Logistic regressions were performed to evaluate the relationship of the independent variables with fellow performance. RESULTS: Using multivariate logistic regression, one of the best residents (OR = 4.02, 95% CI (1.0, 15.9), p < 0.05), exceeds expectations (OR = 4.74, 95% CI (1.4, 16.3), p = 0.01), and give my highest recommendation (OR = 3.87, 95% CI (1.3, 11.7), p = 0.02) predicted positive performance. Highly recommend (OR = 0.31, 95% CI (0.1, 1.0), p < 0.05) and top 5 to 10% (OR = 0.05, 95% CI (0.0, 0.6), p = 0.02) predicted negative performance. The remaining phrases did not correlate to fellowship performance. CONCLUSION: The current LOR evaluation process may place undo importance on phrases that have limited bearing on a candidate's success in training. Training both letter readers and writers to avoid using coded language or avoid assigning improper importance to select phrases may help improve the candidate selection process.

Should my recommendation letter be written by artificial intelligence?

SummaryLetters of recommendation are increasingly important for the residency match. We assessed whether an artificial intelligence (AI) tool could help in writing letters of recommendation by analyzing recommendation letters written by 3 academic staff and AI duplicate versions for 13 applicants. The preferred letters were selected by 3 blinded orthopedic program directors based on a pre-determined set of criteria. The first orthopedic program director selected the AI letter for 31% of applicants, and the 2 remaining program directors selected the AI letter for 38% of applicants, with the staff-written versions selected more often by all of the program directors (p < 0.05). The first program director recognized only 15% of the AI-written letters, the second was able to identify 92%, and the third director identified 77% of AI-written letters (p < 0.05).

"Pray Observe How Time Slips By:" Collaborators, Assistants, and the Background Dynamics in the Publication of Darwin's Cirripedia Project.

This study investigates nineteenth century natural history practices through the lens of the Actor-Network Theory, which posits that scientific practice is shaped by an intricate network of interactions between human and non-human actors. At the core of this research is the analysis of correspondence between Charles Darwin and his collaborators during the Cirripedia Project, which unveils a complex landscape of negotiations with illustrators, funders, specimen owners, and translators, among other stakeholders and interested parties. The study goes beyond the final outcomes of scientific research, delving into behind-the-scenes interactions, and hidden constructions, shedding light on the complex dynamics and actors that conventional scientific narratives often overlook. In general, this approach provides a detailed and insightful view of the underlying processes of nineteenth-century scientific practice, underscoring the importance of epistolary correspondence as a central element in producing scientific knowledge at the time, and in particular it reveals to us how much Darwin was himself involved in the production of his famous work on barnacles. By emphasizing the intricacies of research, this study enriches our understanding of Darwin's work as well as natural history practices in the 19th century, highlighting the complexity and diversity of actors and agents involved in shaping scientific knowledge.

Nature in Seclusion. The Monastic Republic of Letters in Southern Germany.

Monasteries were famous for their extensive libraries and richly decorated churches. Less well known are their observatories and their mathematical-physical collections with telescopes, air pumps, and friction machines. But how did the way of life in the monastery and scientific practices influence each other? This paper examines the interaction of scientific practices and religious way of life using the example of southern German monasteries in the second half of the eighteenth century. It shows how the monks pragmatically linked monastic life and research practice, thereby forming their own specific scientific culture. This closes an important gap in the understanding of scholarship in the eighteenth century by foregrounding the monasteries as places of knowledge production, which have so far received little attention alongside universities and academies.

Sophie de Grouchy's Political Thought in the Letters on Sympathy (1798).

This article proposes a reading of Sophie de Grouchy's moral, political, and economic thought as embedded in the tradition of natural jurisprudence, adapted to the context of the French First Republic. A close reading of her French translation of Adam Smith's Theory of Moral Sentiment and her eight Letters on Sympathy confirms that there are points to be made by reading her works in the context of the language of early modern natural law. This sheds light on the important question of how to read revolutionary republicanism emanating from multiple traditions other than the neo-Roman discourse of non-domination.

Effect of Nudge-Based Intervention on Adherence to Physician Visit Recommendations and Early Health Outcomes among Individuals Identified with Chronic Kidney Disease in Screens.

BACKGROUND: Although CKD screening programs have been provided in many settings, little is known as to how we can effectively translate those screening programs into improved health. METHODS: We conducted a randomized clinical trial on national health screening for CKD in Japan between April 2018 and March 2019. A total of 4011 participants in CKD screening programs aged 40-63 years were randomly assigned to two interventions or the control, with a ratio of 2:2:1, respectively: (1) the nudge-based letter that contained a message on the basis of behavioral economics, (2) the clinical letter including general information about CKD risks, and (3) the control (informed only of the screening results). The main outcome was adherence to a recommended physician visit within 6 months of the intervention. The secondary outcomes were eGFR, proteinuria, and BP 1 year after the intervention. RESULTS: Compared with the control group, the probability of undergoing a recommended physician visit was higher among participants who received the nudge-based letter (19.7% for the intervention group versus 15.8% for the control; difference, +3.9 percentage points [pp]; 95% CI, +0.8 to +7.0; P=0.02) and the clinical letter (19.7% versus 15.8%; difference, +3.9 pp; 95% CI, +0.8 to +7.0; P=0.02). We found no evidence that interventions were associated with improved early health outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The behavioral economics intervention tested in this large RCT had limited effect on changing behavior or improving health outcomes. Although the approach has promise, this study demonstrates the challenge of developing behavioral interventions that improve the effectiveness of CKD screening programs.Clinical Trial registry name and registration number: University Hospital Medical Information Network Clinical Trial Registry, UMIN000035230.

Letters of recommendation: Nuanced bias or useful affirmation?

Narrative letters of recommendation (NLORs) have become key elements of the application process for residency and fellowship. The potential to inadvertently admit bias into these subjective narratives has become an area of research focus across many disciplines. In the present review, we have highlighted the current data regarding bias in NLORs. We also believe that one of the most effective methods to eliminate bias from written recommendations is to first understand that it exists. Thus, the objective measures that have been taken to identify bias in NLORs are important steps in the right direction. We have presented and reflected on the accrued data on bias in NLORs pertaining to surgical training.

Einstein, von Frisch and the honeybee: a historical letter comes to light.

The work of the Nobel Laureate Karl von Frisch, the founder of this journal, was seminal in many ways. He established the honeybee as a key animal model for experimental behavioural studies on sensory perception, learning and memory, and first correctly interpreted its famous dance communication. Here, we report on a previously unknown letter by the Physicist and Nobel Laureate Albert Einstein that was written in October 1949. It briefly addresses the work of von Frisch and also queries how understanding animal perception and navigation may lead to innovations in physics. We discuss records proving that Einstein and von Frisch met in April 1949 when von Frisch visited the USA to present a lecture on bees at Princeton University. In the historical context of Einstein's theories and thought experiments, we discuss some more recent discoveries of animal sensory capabilities alien to us humans and potentially valuable for bio-inspired design improvements. We also address the orientation of animals like migratory birds mentioned by Einstein 70 years ago, which pushes the boundaries of our understanding nature, both its biology and physics.

Do gender and racial differences exist in letters of recommendation for obstetrics and gynecology residency applicants?

BACKGROUND: Studies in several fields demonstrate gender and racial differences in descriptions of applicants in letters of recommendation. However, gender and racial biases in obstetrics and gynecology residency letters of recommendation are understudied. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine whether there are differences in the letters of recommendation written for medical students applying for obstetrics and gynecology residency based on applicant gender and underrepresented in medicine status. STUDY DESIGN: We analyzed all letters of recommendation submitted to a single obstetrics and gynecology residency program during the 2019-2020 application cycle using a computerized text analysis software to evaluate the presence of 25 word categories. Multivariable regression was used to compare differences in the frequency of word categories by gender and underrepresented in medicine status. Concurrently, we performed a qualitative content analysis of letters from a random sample of applicants balanced for gender and underrepresented in medicine status and explored emerging themes until thematic saturation was reached. RESULTS: We analyzed 3060 letters written for 834 applicants, 721 (87%) of whom were women and 198 (24%) of whom were underrepresented in medicine. Men authored 1605 letters (53%). There was no difference in word categories used in letters written for men and women applicants on multivariable analysis. Similarly, there was no word category difference between letters written for applicants who were underrepresented in medicine compared with White and Asian applicants. However, women letter writers used more communal (relationship-oriented) words compared with men letter writers (P<.001). Moreover, on the qualitative analysis of letters from a random sample of 30 applicants, comments about personality traits were frequent in all letters. Comments on surgical skills, work ethic, and leadership were found more in letters for White and Asian applicants, and phrases that were doubt raisers were found more in letters written for underrepresented medicine applicants. CONCLUSION: On linguistic analysis, letters of recommendation written for obstetrics and gynecology residency applicants were similar overall compared with applicant race and gender.

Strategies to improve retention in randomised trials.

BACKGROUND: Poor retention of participants in randomised trials can lead to missing outcome data which can introduce bias and reduce study power, affecting the generalisability, validity and reliability of results. Many strategies are used to improve retention but few have been formally evaluated. OBJECTIVES: To quantify the effect of strategies to improve retention of participants in randomised trials and to investigate if the effect varied by trial setting. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Scopus, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Web of Science Core Collection (SCI-expanded, SSCI, CPSI-S, CPCI-SSH and ESCI) either directly with a specified search strategy or indirectly through the ORRCA database. We also searched the SWAT repository to identify ongoing or recently completed retention trials. We did our most recent searches in January 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included eligible randomised or quasi-randomised trials of evaluations of strategies to increase retention that were embedded in 'host' randomised trials from all disease areas and healthcare settings. We excluded studies aiming to increase treatment compliance. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted data on: the retention strategy being evaluated; location of study; host trial setting; method of randomisation; numbers and proportions in each intervention and comparator group. We used a risk difference (RD) and 95% confidence interval (CI) to estimate the effectiveness of the strategies to improve retention. We assessed heterogeneity between trials. We applied GRADE to determine the certainty of the evidence within each comparison. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 70 eligible papers that reported data from 81 retention trials. We included 69 studies with more than 100,000 participants in the final meta-analyses, of which 67 studies evaluated interventions aimed at trial participants and two evaluated interventions aimed at trial staff involved in retention. All studies were in health care and most aimed to improve postal questionnaire response. Interventions were categorised into broad comparison groups: Data collection; Participants; Sites and site staff; Central study management; and Study design. These intervention groups consisted of 52 comparisons, none of which were supported by high-certainty evidence as determined by GRADE assessment. There were four comparisons presenting moderate-certainty evidence, three supporting retention (self-sampling kits, monetary reward together with reminder or prenotification and giving a pen at recruitment) and one reducing retention (inclusion of a diary with usual follow-up compared to usual follow-up alone). Of the remaining studies, 20 presented GRADE low-certainty evidence and 28 presented very low-certainty evidence. Our findings do provide a priority list for future replication studies, especially with regard to comparisons that currently rely on a single study. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Most of the interventions we identified aimed to improve retention in the form of postal questionnaire response. There were few evaluations of ways to improve participants returning to trial sites for trial follow-up. None of the comparisons are supported by high-certainty evidence. Comparisons in the review where the evidence certainty could be improved with the addition of well-done studies should be the focus for future evaluations.

Characterization of the 2019 Micrographic Surgery and Dermatologic Oncology Standardized Letter of Recommendation.

BACKGROUND: Traditional letters of recommendation used for postgraduate medical training applications have multiple limitations, including a lack of clarity, inflated and overly flattering assessments, and low reliability between interpreting faculty. A micrographic surgery and dermatologic oncology (MSDO) standardized letter of recommendation (SLOR) was created to improve the efficiency, validity, and stratification of applicants to dermatology fellowship training programs. OBJECTIVE: To analyze the MSDO SLOR for trends in grading based on letter-writer and applicant characteristics and to evaluate its ability to demonstrate differences between applicants. METHODS: Standardized letter of recommendations received by 4 fellowship programs from the 2019 San Francisco Match application cycle were reviewed retrospectively. RESULTS: Two hundred forty-nine SLORs were analyzed from 140 applicants. Grade inflation and limited variability in scores were evident. Higher scores correlated with the length of the relationships between letter-writers and applicants and with female letter-writer gender. There was no applicant gender or ethnicity bias detected. CONCLUSION: Despite score inflation, the MSDO SLOR allows for differentiation between fellowship applicants. Future studies are needed to further evaluate the reliability of the SLOR and find ways to improve its content.

More Than One-third of Orthopaedic Applicants Are in the Top 10%: The Standardized Letter of Recommendation and Evaluation of Orthopaedic Resident Applicants.

BACKGROUND: The American Orthopaedic Association (AOA) released the standardized letter of recommendation (SLOR) form to provide standardized information to evaluators of orthopaedic residency applicants. The SLOR associates numerical data to an applicant's letter of recommendation. However, it remains unclear whether the new letter form effectively distinguishes among orthopaedic applicants, for whom letters are perceived to suffer from "grade inflation." In addition, it is unknown whether letters from more experienced faculty members differ in important ways from those written by less experienced faculty. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) What proportion of SLOR recipients were rated in the top 10th percentile and top one-third of the applicant pool? (2) Did letters from program leaders (program directors and department chairs) demonstrate lower aggregate SLOR scores compared with letters written by other faculty members? (3) Did letters from away rotation program leaders demonstrate lower aggregate SLOR scores compared with letters written by faculty at the applicant's home institution? METHODS: This was a retrospective, single institution study examining 559 applications from the 2018 orthopaedic match. Inclusion criteria were all applications submitted to this residency. Exclusion criteria included all letters without an associated SLOR. In all, 1852 letters were received; of these, 26% (476) were excluded, and 74% (1376) were analyzed for SLOR data. We excluded 12% (169 of 1376) of letters that did not include a final summative score. Program leaders were defined as orthopaedic chairs and program directors. Away rotation letters were defined as letters written by faculty during an applicant's away rotation. Our study questions were answered accounting for each subcategory on the SLOR (scale 1-10) and the final ranking (scale 1-5) to form an aggregated score from the SLOR form for each letter. All SLOR questions were included in the creation of these scores. Correlations between program leaders and other faculty letter writers were assessed using a chi-square test. We considered a 1-point difference on 5-point scales to be a clinically important difference and a 2-point difference on 10-point scales to be clinically important. RESULTS: We found that 36% (437 of 1207) of the letters we reviewed indicated the candidate was in the top 10th percentile of all applicants evaluated, and 51% (619 of 1207) of the letters we reviewed indicated the candidate was in the top one-third of all applicants evaluated. We found no clinically important difference between program leaders and other faculty members in terms of summative scores on the SLOR (1.9 ± 0.7 versus 1.7 ± 0.7, mean difference -0.2 [95% CI -0.3 to 0.1]; p < 0.001). We also found no clinically important difference between home program letter writers and away program letter writers in terms of the mean summative scores (1.9 ± 0.7 versus 1.7 ± 0.7, mean difference 0.2; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: In light of these discoveries, programs should examine the data obtained from SLOR forms carefully. SLOR scores skew very positively, which may benefit weaker applicants and harm stronger applicants. Program leaders give summative scores that do not differ substantially from junior faculty, suggesting there is no important difference in grade inflation between these faculty types, and as such, there is no strong need to adjust scores by faculty level. Likewise, away rotation letter writers' summative scores were not substantially different from those of home institution letters writers, indicating that there is no need to adjust scores between these groups either. Based on these findings, we should interpret letters with the understanding that overall there is substantial grade inflation. However, while weight used to be given to letters written by senior faculty members and those obtained on away rotations, we should now examine them equally, rather than trying to adjust them for overly high or low scores. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.

Are Narrative Letters of Recommendation for Medical Students Interpreted as Intended by Orthopaedic Surgery Residency Programs?

BACKGROUND: Narrative letters of recommendation are an important component of the residency application process. However, because narrative letters of recommendation are almost always positive, it is unclear whether those reviewing the letters understand the writer's intended strength of support for a given applicant. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) Is the perception of letter readers for narrative letters of recommendation consistent with the intention of the letter's author? (2) Is there inter-reviewer consistency in selection committee members' perceptions of the narrative letters of recommendation? METHODS: Letter writers who wrote two or more narrative letters of recommendation for applicants to one university-based orthopaedic residency program for the 2014 to 2015 application cycle were sent a survey linked to a specific letter of recommendation they authored to assess the intended meaning regarding the strength of an applicant. A total of 247 unstructured letters of recommendation and accompanying surveys were sent to their authors, and 157 surveys were returned and form the basis of this study (response percentage 64%). The seven core members of the admissions committee (of 22 total reviewers) at a university-based residency program were sent a similar survey regarding their perception of the letter. To answer our research question about whether letter readers' perceptions about a candidate were consistent with the letter writer's intention, we used kappa values to determine agreement for survey questions involving discrete variables and Spearman correlation coefficients (SCCs) to determine agreement for survey questions involving continuous variables. To answer our research question regarding inter-reviewer consistency among the seven faculty members, we compared the letter readers' responses to each survey question using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). RESULTS: There was a negligible to moderate correlation between the intended and perceived strength of the letters (SCC 0.26 to 0.57), with only one of seven letter readers scoring in the moderate correlation category. When stratifying the applicants into thirds, there was only slight agreement (kappa 0.07 to 0.19) between the writers and reviewers. There were similarly low kappa values for agreement about how the writers and readers felt regarding the candidate matching into their program (kappa 0.14 to 0.30). The ICC for each question among the seven faculty reviewers ranged from poor to moderate (ICC 0.42 to 0.52). CONCLUSION: Our results demonstrate that the reader's perception of narrative letters of recommendation did not correlate well with the letter writer's intended meaning and was not consistent between letter readers at a single university-based urban orthopaedic surgery residency program. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Given the low correlation between the intended strength of the letter writers and the perceived strength of those letters, we believe that other options such as a slider bar or agreed-upon wording as is used in many dean's letters may be helpful.

The Readability of Outpatient Plastic Surgery Clinic Letters: Are We Adhering to Plain English Writing Standards?

The readability of letters sent to patients plays a pivotal role in facilitating joint decision making and positive health outcomes. Guidance suggests that all correspondence should be directed to patients. Covid-19 led to an increase in direct-to-patient communication. This study aims to determine the quantity and quality of plastic surgery clinic letters sent to patients before and during the Covid-19 pandemic. A total of 127 pre-Covid clinic letters from November to December 2019 and 103 peri-Covid clinic letters from April to May 2020 were identified and assessed for readability. Text was analyzed using a standardized set of commonly used readability formulae, including SMOG, Flesch Reading Ease, and the Coleman-Liao Index. A total of 100 pre-Covid and 58 peri-Covid letters were suitable for inclusion. Median results for formulae that output a U.S. grade score ranged between 9 and 12.9 for letters written prior to Covid-19 and 9 and 13.2 for those written during Covid-19. Eight percent of letters were sent to patients pre-Covid, increasing to 28% during the pandemic. Letters sent to patients had a median grade score of between 8 and 12 prior to Covid-19 and 8 and 10.6 during Covid-19. Letters sent to clinicians ranged between 9 and 13 and 9 and 13.3, respectively. Outpatient plastic surgery letters are written at a readability level too high to facilitate understanding among the general population. The increase in direct-to-patient contact during the Covid-19 outbreak has not led to a significant improvement in the readability of clinic letters. The authors suggest an increase in letter standardization and raising awareness of readability when writing clinic letters.

"1984": What Orwell could not predict. Proteomic analysis of his scripts.

George Orwell, fighter for the Republican Army during the Spanish Civil War, was shot through the throat by a sniper on 20th May 1937 and nearly killed. After receiving only a summary external treatment, on the 29th, he was cured in a Barcelona hospital where he was infected by the Koch bacillus. After fleeing from Spain on 23rd June 1937, he repaired to his cottage in Wallington, Hertfordshire, wherefrom he wrote a letter to Sergey Dynamov, Editor of Soviet journal "Foreign Literature." This typewritten letter was analyzed by application of five EVA strips (ethylene vinyl acetate studded with strong cation and anion and with C8 and C18 resins; four on the corners and one over his signature), searching for biological traces. Upon elution of the captured biologicals, trypsin digestion and Orbitrap Fusion trihybrid mass spectrometer analyses, three of the five strips yielded clear traces of six unique proteins (via proteotypic peptides) of the tuberculosis bacterium. Additionally, MALDI TOF analysis of saliva of a tuberculosis patient and the EVA strip eluates gave a spectrum of 14 peptide bands (Mr 2700 to 6700 Da range) coincident between the two samples, thus, fully confirming Orwell's pathology. These results are attributed to saliva traces on Orwell's fingertips and to the fact that the letter was written on 2nd July 1937, when Orwell's pathology was at its peak.