ACP Herbert S. Waxman Chief Resident Teaching Scholarship

Chief Resident's Corner is an e-newsletter that provides information on internal medicine including abstract competition deadline, resources, etc.

Joseph E. Johnson Leadership Award

Joseph E. Johnson Leadership Award ("Johnson Award") The Joseph E. Johnson Leadership Award was formerly administered by the Council of Resident/Fellow Members and was established by the Board of Regents as a national award on January 11, 2003. Dr. Johnson served as ACP Governor, Regent, Treasurer, Interim Executive Vice President, and Senior Vice President for Membership.

Doctor's Dilemma®

ACP Doctor's Dilemma is a medical jeopardy competition held each year at ACP's annual meeting and available as a mobile game. Learn more.

National Abstract Competitions Volunteer Opportunities

Abstract Review is Now Open for VolunteersThe American College of Physicians thanks you for volunteering to review abstracts submitted by Medical Student, Resident/Fellow, and Early Career Physician members for the 2026 National Abstract Competitions.All abstracts should be reviewed and scored by January 16, 2026.Review Abstracts

Writing a Research Abstract

The written abstract is used in making selections for presentations at scientific meetings. Writing a good abstract is a formidable undertaking and many novice researchers wonder how it is possible to condense months of work into 300 to 400 words. Nevertheless, creating a well-written abstract is a skill that can be learned and mastering the skill will increase the probability that your research will be selected for presentation. The first rule of writing abstracts is to know the rules. Organizers of scientific meetings set explicit limits on the length abstracts.

Writing a Clinical Vignette (Case Report) Abstract

Case reports represent the oldest and most familiar form of medical communication. Far from a "second-class" publication, many original observations are first presented as case reports. Like scientific abstracts, the case report abstract is governed by rules that dictate its format and length. This article will outline the features of a well-written case report abstract and provide an example to emphasize the main features.

Selecting Visual Aids

After you have completed and prioritized your topic outline, the next task is to select your visual aids. This section will review why visual aids are important, list different options, and describe how to select the best option for your presentation. A subsequent article will outline how to construct your visual aids for the presentation. Visual aids help in the communication of ideas and concepts. This is because visual aids:

Presenting a Clinical Vignette: Deciding What to Present

If you are scheduled to make a presentation of a clinical vignette, reading this article will improve your performance. We describe a set of practical, proven steps that will guide your preparation of the presentation. The process of putting together a stellar presentation takes time and effort, and we assume that you will be willing to put forth the effort to make your presentation successful. This and subsequent articles will focus on planning, preparation, creating visual aids (slides), and presentation skills.

Preparing Visual Aids

Once your presentation is complete, begin to identify the information you can present visually. Keep in mind that the fundamental purpose for visuals is to help the audience understand your message. This section will address what to present and how to design it. Listed below are some suggestions of information categories that can be effectively communicated as a visual: Research

Preparing the Medical Research Presentation | ACP

Tips for preparing a medical research presentation and making a favorable impression at a scientific meeting. Access outline template, checklist & more.

Outpatient Treatment of Confirmed COVID-19: A Living, Rapid Evidence Review for the American College of Physicians (Version 2)

An update is available for this article. Background: Clinicians and patients want to know the benefits and harms of outpatient treatment options for the Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2. Purpose: To assess the benefits and harms of 22 different COVID-19 treatments. Data Sources: The Epistemonikos COVID-19 L·OVE platform, the iSearch COVID-19 portfolio, and the World Health Organization (WHO) COVID-19 Research Database from 26 November 2021 to 2 March 2023. Study Selection: Two reviewers independently screened abstracts and full texts against a priori–defined criteria. Data Extraction: One reviewer extracted the data and assessed the risk of bias and certainty of evidence (COE). A second reviewer verified the data abstraction and assessments. Data Synthesis: Two randomized controlled trials and 6 retrospective cohort studies were included. Nirmatrelvir–ritonavir was associated with a reduction in hospitalization due to COVID-19 (for example, 0.7% vs. 1.2%; moderate COE) and all-cause mortality (for example, <0.1% vs. 0.2%; moderate COE). Molnupiravir led to a higher recovery rate (31.8% vs. 22.6%; moderate COE) and reduced time to recovery (9 vs. 15 median days; moderate COE) but had no effect on all-cause mortality (0.02% vs. 0.04%; moderate COE) and the incidence of serious adverse events (0.4% vs. 0.3%; moderate COE). Ivermectin had no effect on time to recovery (moderate COE) and resulted in no difference in adverse events compared with placebo (low COE). Sotrovimab resulted in no difference in all-cause mortality compared with no treatment (low COE). No eligible studies for all other treatments of interest were identified. Limitation: Evidence for nirmatrelvir–ritonavir and sotrovimab is based on nonrandomized studies only. Conclusion: Nirmatrelvir–ritonavir and molnupiravir probably improve outcomes for outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19. Primary Funding Source: American College of Physicians. (PROSPERO: CRD42023406456)

Changes in Induced Medical and Procedural Abortion Rates in a Commercially Insured Population, 2018 to 2022: An Interrupted Time-Series Analysis: Annals of Internal Medicine: Vol 176, No 11

Background: During the COVID-19 pandemic, access to in-person care was limited, and regulations requiring in-person dispensing of mifepristone for medical abortions were relaxed. The effect of the pandemic and accompanying regulatory changes on abortion use is unknown. Objective: To estimate changes in the incidence rate of induced medical and procedural abortions. Design: Serial cross-sectional study with interrupted time-series analyses. Setting: Commercially insured persons in the United States. Participants: Reproductive-aged women. Intervention: Onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020 and subsequent regulatory changes affecting the in-person dispensing requirement for mifepristone. Measurements: Monthly age-adjusted incidence rates of medical and procedural abortions were measured among women aged 15 to 44 years from January 2018 to June 2022. Medical abortions were classified as in-person or telehealth. Linear segmented time-series regression was used to calculate changes in abortion rates after March 2020. Results: In January 2018, the estimated age-adjusted monthly incidence rate of abortions was 151 per million women (95% CI, 142 to 161 per million women), with equal rates of medical and procedural abortions. After March 2020, there was an immediate 14% decrease in the monthly incidence rate of abortions (21 per million women [CI, 7 to 35 per million women]; P = 0.004), driven by a 31% decline in procedural abortions (22 per million women [CI, 16 to 28 per million women]; P < 0.001). Fewer than 4% of medical abortions each month were administered via telehealth. Limitation: Only abortions reimbursed by commercial insurance were measured. Conclusion: The incidence rate of procedural abortions declined during the COVID-19 pandemic, and this lower rate persisted after other elective procedures rebounded to prepandemic rates. Despite removal of the in-person dispensing requirement for mifepristone, the use of telehealth for insurance-covered medical abortions remained rare. Amid increasing state restrictions, commercial insurers have the opportunity to increase access to abortion care, particularly via telehealth. Primary Funding Source: Health Resources and Services Administration.

Clinical Effectiveness of Cognitively Enhanced Tai Ji Quan Training on Global Cognition and Dual-Task Performance During Walking in Older Adults With Mild Cognitive Impairment or Self-Reported Memory Concerns: A Randomized Controlled Trial: Annals of Internal Medicine: Vol 176, No 11

Background: Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) negatively impacts cognition and dual-task abilities. A physical–cognitive integrated treatment approach could mitigate this risk for dementia. Objective: To compare the effectiveness of cognitively enhanced tai ji quan versus standard tai ji quan or stretching exercise in improving global cognition and reducing dual-task walking costs in older adults with MCI or self-reported memory concerns. Design: 3-group, randomized (1:1:1), superiority trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04070703) Setting: Community residential homes. Participants: 318 older adults with self-reported memory decline or concern and a Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR) global score of 0.5 or lower at baseline. Intervention: Cognitively enhanced tai ji quan (n = 105), standard tai ji quan (n = 107), or stretching (n = 106). All groups exercised at home via real-time videoconferencing, 1 hour semiweekly for 24 weeks. Measurements: The co–primary endpoints were change in Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA; range, 0 to 30) and dual-task walking costs (difference between single- and dual-task gait speed, expressed in percentage) from baseline to 24 weeks. Secondary outcomes included CDR–Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB), Trail Making Test B, Digit Span Backward (DSB), and physical performance tests. Outcomes were assessed at 16, 24 (primary endpoint), and 48 weeks (6 months after intervention). Results: A total of 304 participants (96%) completed the 24-week assessment. Cognitively enhanced tai ji quan outperformed standard tai ji quan and stretching with a greater improvement in MoCA score (mean difference, 1.5 points [98.75% CI, 0.7 to 2.2 points] and 2.8 points [CI, 2.1 to 3.6 points], respectively) and in dual-task walking (mean difference, 9.9% [CI, 2.8% to 16.6%] and 22% [CI, 13% to 31%], respectively). The intervention effects persisted at 48-week follow-up. Limitation: There was no nonexercise control group; participants had subjective or mild cognitive impairment. Conclusion: Among community-dwelling older adults with MCI, cognitively enriched tai ji quan therapy was superior to standard tai ji quan and stretching exercise in improving global cognition and reducing dual-task gait interference, with outcomes sustained at 48 weeks. Primary Funding Source: National Institute on Aging.

Thyroidectomy for Euthyroid Patients With Hashimoto Disease and Persisting Symptoms

Paint

Adoption of Internal Medicine Milestone Ratings and Changes in Bias Against Black, Latino, and Asian Internal Medicine Residents

Background: The 2014 adoption of the Milestone ratings system may have affected evaluation bias against minoritized groups. Objective: To assess bias in internal medicine (IM) residency knowledge ratings against Black or Latino residents—who are underrepresented in medicine (URiM)—and Asian residents before versus after Milestone adoption in 2014. Design: Cross-sectional and interrupted time-series comparisons. Setting: U.S. IM residencies. Participants: 59 835 IM residents completing residencies during 2008 to 2013 and 2015 to 2020. Intervention: Adoption of the Milestone ratings system. Measurements: Pre-Milestone (2008 to 2013) and post-Milestone (2015 to 2020) bias was estimated as differences in standardized knowledge ratings between U.S.-born and non–U.S.-born minoritized groups versus non-Latino U.S.-born White (NLW) residents, with adjustment for performance on the American Board of Internal Medicine IM certification examination and other physician characteristics. Interrupted time-series analysis measured deviations from pre-Milestone linear bias trends. Results: During the pre-Milestone period, ratings biases against minoritized groups were large (−0.40 SDs [95% CI, −0.48 to −0.31 SDs; P < 0.001] for URiM residents, −0.24 SDs [CI, −0.30 to −0.18 SDs; P < 0.001] for U.S.-born Asian residents, and −0.36 SDs [CI, −0.45 to −0.27 SDs; P < 0.001] for non–U.S.-born Asian residents). These estimates decreased to less than −0.15 SDs after adoption of Milestone ratings for all groups except U.S.-born Black residents, among whom substantial (though lower) bias persisted (−0.26 SDs [CI, −0.36 to −0.17 SDs; P < 0.001]). Substantial deviations from pre-Milestone linear bias trends coincident with adoption of Milestone ratings were also observed. Limitations: Unobserved variables correlated with ratings bias and Milestone ratings adoption, changes in identification of race/ethnicity, and generalizability to Milestones 2.0. Conclusion: Knowledge ratings bias against URiM and Asian residents was ameliorated with the adoption of the Milestone ratings system. However, substantial ratings bias against U.S.-born Black residents persisted. Primary Funding Source: None.

Gene Therapy Versus Common Care for Eligible Individuals With Sickle Cell Disease in the United States: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Annals of Internal Medicine: Vol 177, No 2

Background: Sickle cell disease (SCD) and its complications contribute to high rates of morbidity and early mortality and high cost in the United States and African heritage community. Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of gene therapy for SCD and its value-based prices (VBPs). Design: Comparative modeling analysis across 2 independently developed simulation models (University of Washington Model for Economic Analysis of Sickle Cell Cure [UW-MEASURE] and Fred Hutchinson Institute Sickle Cell Disease Outcomes Research and Economics Model [FH-HISCORE]) using the same databases. Data Sources: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services claims data, 2008 to 2016; published literature. Target Population: Persons eligible for gene therapy. Time Horizon: Lifetime. Perspective: U.S. health care sector and societal. Intervention: Gene therapy versus common care. Outcome Measures: Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), equity-informed VBPs, and price acceptability curves. Results of Base-Case Analysis: At an assumed $2 million price for gene therapy, UW-MEASURE and FH-HISCORE estimated ICERs of $193 000 per QALY and $427 000 per QALY, respectively, under the health care sector perspective. Corresponding estimates from the societal perspective were $126 000 per QALY and $281 000 per QALY. The difference in results between models stemmed primarily from considering a slightly different target population and incorporating the quality-of-life (QOL) effects of splenic sequestration, priapism, and acute chest syndrome in the UW model. From a societal perspective, acceptable (>90% confidence) VBPs ranged from $1 million to $2.5 million depending on the use of alternative effective metrics or equity-informed threshold values. Results of Sensitivity Analysis: Results were sensitive to the costs of myeloablative conditioning before gene therapy, effect on caregiver QOL, and effect of gene therapy on long-term survival. Limitation: The short-term effects of gene therapy on vaso-occlusive events were extrapolated from 1 study. Conclusion: Gene therapy for SCD below a $2 million price tag is likely to be cost-effective when applying a societal perspective at an equity-informed threshold for cost-effectiveness analysis. Primary Funding Source: National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.

Lifetime Health and Economic Outcomes of Biparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging as First-Line Screening for Prostate Cancer: A Decision Model Analysis: Annals of Internal Medicine: Vol 177, No 7

Background: Contemporary prostate cancer (PCa) screening uses first-line prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing, possibly followed by multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) for men with elevated PSA levels. First-line biparametric MRI (bpMRI) screening has been proposed as an alternative. Objective: To evaluate the comparative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of first-line bpMRI versus PSA-based screening. Design: Decision analysis using a microsimulation model. Data Sources: Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database; randomized trials. Target Population: U.S. men aged 55 years with no prior screening or PCa diagnosis. Time Horizon: Lifetime. Perspective: U.S. health care system. Intervention: Biennial screening to age 69 years using first-line PSA testing (test-positive threshold, 4 µg/L) with or without second-line mpMRI or first-line bpMRI (test-positive threshold, PI-RADS [Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System] 3 to 5 or 4 to 5), followed by biopsy guided by MRI or MRI plus transrectal ultrasonography. Outcome Measures: Screening tests, biopsies, diagnoses, overdiagnoses, treatments, PCa deaths, quality-adjusted and unadjusted life-years saved, and costs. Results of Base-Case Analysis: For 1000 men, first-line bpMRI versus first-line PSA testing prevented 2 to 3 PCa deaths and added 10 to 30 life-years (4 to 11 days per person) but increased the number of biopsies by 1506 to 4174 and the number of overdiagnoses by 38 to 124 depending on the biopsy imaging scheme. At conventional cost-effectiveness thresholds, first-line PSA testing with mpMRI followed by either biopsy approach for PI-RADS 4 to 5 produced the greatest net monetary benefits. Results of Sensitivity Analysis: First-line PSA testing remained more cost-effective even if bpMRI was free, all men with low-risk PCa underwent surveillance, or screening was quadrennial. Limitation: Performance of first-line bpMRI was based on second-line mpMRI data. Conclusion: Decision analysis suggests that comparative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of PCa screening are driven by false-positive results and overdiagnoses, favoring first-line PSA testing with mpMRI over first-line bpMRI. Primary Funding Source: National Cancer Institute.

Impact of Clinical Demands on the Educational Mission in Hospital Medicine at 17 Academic Medical Centers: A Qualitative Analysis: Annals of Internal Medicine: Vol 176, No 11

Background: Clinical growth is outpacing the growth of traditional educational opportunities at academic medical centers (AMCs). Objective: To understand the impact of clinical growth on the educational mission for academic hospitalists. Design: Qualitative study using semistructured interviews that were analyzed using a mixed inductive and deductive method at the semantic level. Setting: Large AMCs across the United States that experienced clinical growth in the past 5 years. Participants: Division heads, section heads, and other hospital medicine (HM) leaders who oversaw and guided academic and clinical efforts of HM programs. Measurements: Themes and subthemes. Results: From September 2021 to January 2022, HM leaders from 17 AMCs participated in the interviews, and 3 key themes emerged. First, AMCs’ disproportionate clinical growth highlighted the tension between clinical and educational missions. This included a mismatch in supply and demand for traditional teaching time, competing priorities, and clinical growth being seen as both an opportunity and a threat. Second, amid the shifting landscape of high clinical demands and evolving educational opportunities, hospitalists still strongly prefer traditional teaching. To address this mismatch, HM groups have had to alter recruitment strategies and create innovative solutions to help build academic careers. Third, participants noted a need to reimagine the role and identity of an academic hospitalist, emphasizing tailored career pathways and educational roles spanning well beyond traditional house staff teaching teams. Limitation: The study focused on large AMCs. Conclusion: Although HM groups have implemented many creative strategies to address clinical growth and keep education front and center, challenges remain, particularly heavy clinical workloads and a continued dilution of traditional teaching opportunities. Primary Funding Source: Society of Hospital Medicine Student Scholar Grant.

Cost-Effectiveness of Newer Pharmacologic Treatments in Adults With Type 2 Diabetes: A Systematic Review of Cost-Effectiveness Studies for the American College of Physicians

Background: In the United States, costs of antidiabetes medications exceed $327 billion. Purpose: To systematically review cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) of newer antidiabetes medications for type 2 diabetes. Data Sources: Bibliographic databases from 1 January 2010 through 13 July 2023, limited to English. Study Selection: Nonindustry-funded CEAs, done from a U.S. perspective that estimated cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained for newer antidiabetic medications. Two reviewers screened the literature; disagreements were resolved with a third reviewer. Data Extraction: Cost-effectiveness analyses were reviewed for treatment comparisons, model inputs, and outcomes. Risk of bias (RoB) of the CEAs was assessed using Drummond criteria and certainty of evidence (CoE) was assessed using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluations). Certainty of evidence was determined using cost per QALY thresholds predetermined by the American College of Physicians Clinical Guidelines Committee; low (>$150 000), intermediate ($50 to $150 000), or high (<$50 000) value per QALY compared with the alternative. Data Synthesis: Nine CEAs were eligible (2 low, 1 high, and 6 some concerns RoB), evaluating glucagon-like peptide-1 agonists (GLP1a), dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP4i), sodium–glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i), glucose-dependent insulinotropic peptide agonist (GIP/GLP1a), and insulin. Comparators were metformin, sulfonylureas, neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) insulin, and others. Compared with metformin, GLP1a and SGLT2i are low value as first-line therapy (high CoE) but may be of intermediate value when added to metformin or background therapy compared with adding nothing (low CoE). Insulin analogues may be similarly effective but more expensive than NPH insulin (low CoE). The GIP/GLP1a value is uncertain (insufficient CoE). Limitations: Cost-effectiveness analyses varied in methodological approach, assumptions, and drug comparisons. Risk of bias and GRADE method for CEAs are not well established. Conclusion: Glucagon-like peptide-1 agonists and SGLT2i are of low value as first-line therapy but may be of intermediate value when added to metformin or other background therapy compared with adding nothing. Other drugs and comparisons are of low or uncertain value. Results are sensitive to drug effectiveness and cost assumptions. Primary Funding Source: American College of Physicians. (PROSPERO: CRD42022382315)

Put words in our mouth

Registration is open for ACP's live online POCUS Mentorship Program

Clinical Skills Center programs to offer hands-on and interactive learning opportunities

New COVID-19 vaccine recommendations, data on after-effects of infection

MKSAP Quiz: Runner evaluation during a marathon

Recommendations released on statin therapy for people with HIV

Bariatric surgery improves long-term diabetes outcomes more than medication, lifestyle interventions

Put words in our mouth

Register for spring or summer 2024 ACP Board Review Courses

ACP to hold first Internal Medicine Meeting welcome reception

Internal medicine residents report high interest, limited competence in hospital medicine | ACP Hospitalist

Dr. Poppins | ACP Hospitalist

4 trigger tools compared for identifying med-related readmissions | ACP Hospitalist

U.S. heart failure hospitalizations on the rise again after pandemic drop | ACP Hospitalist

Take a quiz about the Oct. 2 issue! | ACP Hospitalist

Rating the ratings | ACP Hospitalist

Overdose risk doubled after patient discharge before medically advised | ACP Hospitalist

Expediting ED-to-hospice transitions | ACP Hospitalist

Electronic feedback on patients whose care was escalated helpful for hospitalists | ACP Hospitalist

CMS reports demographics, quality, cost from hospital-at-home initiative | ACP Hospitalist