In the Rapid Review series, I briefly review the key points of a clinical review paper (which often extends to multiple papers because I can’t help myself). The topic this time: Sweet’s syndrome (aka acute febrile neutrophilic dermatosis)
As far as I can tell, despite talking about the paper widely at conferences, I never included a write up of the original ANDROMEDA-SHOCK trial on First10EM. (Hernández 2019) (There is a massive file of all the topics I want to cover, and would cover if this was a job […]
I have spent a lot of time summarizing the evidence and trying to dispel myths when it comes to contrast and kidney injury. (Bottom line: we have massive amounts of evidence, and in controlled studies with modern contrast agents, we cannot find even the smallest hint of harm from contrast.) […]
There are, I think, some very interesting papers this time around. Physicians vs AI: ECG edition Shroyer S, Mehta S, Thukral N, Smiley K, Mercaldo N, Meyers HP, Smith SW. Accuracy of cath lab activation decisions for STEMI-equivalent and mimic ECGs: Physicians vs. AI (Queen of Hearts by PMcardio). Am […]
Why do so many antibiotics get prescribed for a week? Is there something special about 7 days of therapy? Would we ever use the number 7 in any other context? The courses of antibiotics we prescribe are clearly not scientific, which has always made the lecture that patients receive about […]
If you had asked me 5 years ago whether a disease modifying agent for Alzheimer’s disease would be developed, I would have laughed. “Moonshot; million to one; when pigs can fly”. Seems like I am as good at predicting the future as I am at hitting a golf ball. Although […]
It has been a while since I have critically appraised. Life without medical journals is sort of nice, but I guess it just isn’t me, so I am back and nerdier than ever. That means there are some strange selections this time around, but there are bound to be at […]
Might elderly patients, with a higher risk of undiagnosed hypertension and higher rates of vascular disease, require higher blood pressure targets in sepsis? Or might this just be yet another example of medicine doing harm in the quest of better numbers on a monitor?