The vascular formations in glioblastoma.

F. K. Storring,J. B. Duguid

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/PATH.1700680128

1954-07-01

The Journal of Pathology and Bacteriology

Abstract:

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Post-Doctoral Training in Pain Medicine: Too Little, Yet Not Too Late?

Scott Pritzlaff,Miles Day,Sayed Wahezi,Michael Schatman

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2147/jpr.s462429

IF: 2.8319

2024-02-19

Journal of Pain Research

Abstract:Scott G Pritzlaff, 1 Miles Day, 2 Sayed E Wahezi, 3 Michael E Schatman 4, 5 On behalf of Pain Medicine Luminaries 1 Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, University of California, Davis, Sacramento, CA, USA; 2 Traweek-Racz Endowed Professor in Pain Research, Department of Anesthesiology, Texas Tech University HSC, Lubbock, TX, USA; 3 Departments of Rehabilitation Medicine, Anesthesiology, and Orthopedic Surgery, Montefiore Medical Center, Bronx, NY, USA; 4 Department of Anesthesiology, Perioperative Care and Pain Medicine, NYU Grossman School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA; 5 Department of Population Health – Division of Medical Ethics, NYU Grossman School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA Correspondence: Michael E Schatman, Department of Anesthesiology, Perioperative Care & Pain Medicine, NYU Grossman School of Medicine, 550 First Avenue, New York, NY, 10016, USA, Tel +1 425-647-4880, Email As leaders in pain medicine, we stand at a crucial juncture in the evolution of our field. The challenges we face in 2024 underscore the urgency of reassessing the current structure of pain medicine fellowships. Our commitment to shaping the future of pain physicians, and, thus, the field generally, compels us to address the constraints that hinder the comprehensive training essential for the next generation. Over the past decade, pain medicine has witnessed significant changes that have profoundly affected the training of fellows. The shift away from opioid management paired with the emergence of numerous innovative therapies has added complexity to fellowship training, creating a dynamic landscape with competing educational priorities. Balancing the emphasis on conservative care and procedures has become more challenging for academic leaders due to a conflict of static educational time and significantly increased educational need. In fact, fellows must supplement their training through industry- and pain society-based education to achieve a more comprehensive understanding of both conservative treatments (such as pharmaceutical approaches, restorative therapies and psychosocial interventions) and training in the dramatically and rapidly evolving field of interventional pain medicine. 1 This holistic, balanced and multidisciplinary approach is consistent with the 2019 US Department of Health and Human Services guidance on best practices in pain management, 2 as well as with the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) requirements. 3 Additionally, the COVID-19 pandemic produced challenges associated with patient volume and treatment paradigms due to decreased ancillary staffing (eg, physical and occupational therapy, psychiatry), highlighting the need for these services and adding commensurate value for increased awareness for our trainees. Amidst these changes, the landscape of procedural interventions in pain medicine has expanded considerably over recent years. Advances in neurostimulation, ablative techniques, percutaneous surgical technologies, and ultrasound application have broadened the procedural toolbox. With these interventional therapies becoming more common, training a pain fellow within the standard timeframe of one year has become notably more challenging. We opine that the current fellowship structure can provide only "introductory exposure", with the expectation that fellows will develop into competent pain physicians post-fellowship. Although the growth of our field is exciting and necessitates a demand for even more broadly skilled practitioners, new information and technical skill set demand is outpacing our ability to teach it. Furthermore, the landscape of pain medicine fellowship has undergone significant transformation in recent years, marked by a notable shift in recruitment strategies and a broadening of the candidate pool to include diverse specialties such as anesthesia, physical medicine and rehabilitation (PM&R), neurology, emergency medicine (EM), radiology, psychiatry, and more. This inclusivity has brought forth a wealth of unique strengths and backgrounds, enhancing the multidisciplinary nature of pain medicine teams. However, this shift also introduces a challenge, as the starting points and interventional backgrounds of fellows from different specialties can vary significantly. The 2023 National Resident Matching Program (NMRP) match reflects this evolution, yielding historically low numbers of anesthesia applicants. This trend underscores the evolving dynamics within our specialty, prompting fellowship programs to adapt and welcome candidates from a broader array of medical backgrounds. As the landscape transforms, the emphasis on embracing diversity in specialty backgrounds will likely reshape the future of pain medicine fellowship training. -Abstract Truncated-

clinical neurology
Declining pain medicine fellowship applications from 2019 to 2024: A concerning trend among anesthesia residents and a growing gender disparity

Scott G. Pritzlaff,Naileshni Singh,Chinar Sanghvi,Michael J. Jung,Paul K. Cheng,David Copenhaver

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/papr.13441

IF: 3.079

2024-11-22

Pain Practice

Abstract:Introduction The fields of anesthesiology and pain medicine are experiencing significant changes driven by market forces and professional preferences. While demand for anesthesiologists is rising, pain medicine is facing a decline in fellowship applications. Methods This study analyzed data from the Electronic Residency Application Service (ERAS) and the National Resident Matching Program (NRMP) from 2019 to 2023, focusing on trends in fellowship applications to pain medicine programs. Additionally, preliminary data from the 2024 match cycle were examined. Results There has been a notable decrease in anesthesiology residents applying to pain medicine fellowships, with applications dropping from 351 in 2019 to 193 in 2023. The overall decline in anesthesia‐based applicants to pain medicine fellowships was 45%, signaling the highest detriment among anesthesiology applicants compared to other specialties. Gender disparities have been prevalent, with the absolute number of female applicants decreasing every year since 2019. Additionally, the 2023 match saw a significant number of unfilled programs, with 35 out of 115 programs failing to fill all positions. Preliminary data from the 2024 match cycle suggest this downward trend is continuing. Conclusion The decline in pain medicine fellowship applications, particularly among anesthesiology residents, signals potential future workforce shortages and challenges in patient care. Recruitment strategies should include early exposure to pain medicine during residency, enhanced mentorship programs, and robust recruitment efforts (including virtual options). Addressing these issues is essential to ensure enough trained specialists to meet the growing need for pain specialists nationally.

clinical neurology,anesthesiology
Current state of the pain medicine match: perspective and an eye to the future

Anuj Kailash Aggarwal,Meredith Barad,Nu Cindy Chai,Timothy Furnish,Puneet Mishra,Lynn Kohan,Susan Moeschler,Rajiv D Reddy,Bhavana Yalamuru

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/rapm-2024-105770

2024-09-03

Abstract:The National Resident Matching Program (NRMP) for pain medicine fellowships marked its 10th anniversary in 2023, coinciding with growing discussions within the Association of Pain Program Directors (APPD) regarding the program's future in the context of a recent decline of applicants into pain medicine. This letter explores the rationale behind reassessing the NRMP's utility for pain medicine, examining historical and current trends, and considering the implications of withdrawing from the match. Despite a recent decline in applicants and an increase in unfilled positions, the APPD advocates for continued participation in the match. The match ensures equitable and stable recruitment, preventing the chaotic pre-match environment of competitive, early offers. Data from similar specialties highlight the pitfalls of non-match systems, such as increased applicant pressure and reduced program visibility. The APPD supports maintaining the NRMP match while implementing reforms like preference signaling to address evolving challenges. The APPD aims to preserve the match's benefits and ensure a stable future for pain medicine fellowship recruitment.
Trainee Insight into Pain Fellowship Programs: A Critical Evaluation of the Current Educational System by the APPD

Sayed Emal Wahezi,Tahereh Naeimi,Moorice Caparo,Trent D Emerick,Heejung Choi,Yashar Eshraghi,Magdalena Anitescu,Kiran Patel,Rene Przkora,Thelma Wright,Susan Moeschler,Meredith Barad,Stephanie Rand,Mooyeon Oh-Park,Benjamin Seidel,Ugur Yener,Jonathan Alerte,Naum Shaparin,Alan D Kaye,Lynn Kohan

IF: 4.396

Pain Physician

Abstract:Background: Since 1992, when the Accreditation Council of Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) acknowledged pain medicine as a subspecialty, the field has experienced significant growth in its number of programs, diversity of sponsoring specialties, treatment algorithms, and popularity among applicants. These shifts prompted changes to the educational model, overseen by program directors (PDs) and the ACGME. The pool of pain fellowship applicants also changed during that period. Objectives: This study aims to investigate trainees' reasons for applying to pain medicine fellowship programs as well as the applicants' specific expectations, interests, and motivations, thereby contributing to the remodeling and universal improvement of programs across the country. Study design: Online survey via SurveyMonkey. The online questionnaire targeted pain fellowship applicants in 2023 and current fellows in the US. Methods: Our study was designed by board members of the Association of Pain Program Directors (APPD). The board disseminated a survey to those who applied to ACGME Pain Medicine fellowships in 2023 as well as to existing fellows. The survey was emailed to residency and fellowship PDs for dissemination to their trainees. The participants answered a 12-question survey on their reasons for pursuing pain medicine fellowships, expectations of and beyond those fellowships, and educational adjustments. Results: There were 283 survey participants (80% applicants in residency training and 20% fellows). Participants ranked basic interventional procedures and a strong desire to learn advanced procedures as the most significant factors in pursuing a pain fellowship. Most trainees (70%) did not wish to pursue a 2-year fellowship, and 50% desired to go into private practice. Limitations: The relatively small number of respondents is a limitation that could introduce sampling error. Since most of the respondents were from the fields of physical medicine and rehabilitation (PM&R) and anesthesia, the use of convenience sampling reduced our ability to generalize the results to the wider community. Furthermore, approximately 80% of the trainees were residents, who might have had less experience in or knowledge of the survey's particulars than did the fellows. Conclusion: This survey demonstrated that procedural volume and diversity were important factors in trainees' decisions to apply to the field of pain medicine; however, extending the duration of a pain fellowship was not an option survey participants favored. Therefore, PDs and educational stakeholders in pain fellowship training need to develop creative strategies to maintain competitive applicants' interest while they adapt to our evolving field.
The current state of training in pain medicine fellowships: An Association of Pain Program Directors (APPD) survey of program directors

Sayed Emal Wahezi,Trent D. Emerick,Moorice Caparó,Heejung Choi,Yashar Eshraghi,Tahereh Naeimi,Lynn Kohan,Magdalena Anitescu,Thelma Wright,Rene Przkora,Kiran Patel,Tim J. Lamer,Susan Moeschler,Ugur Yener,Jonathan Alerte,Radhika Grandhe,Alexander Bautista,Boris Spektor,Kristen Noon,Rajiv Reddy,Uzondu C. Osuagwu,Anna Carpenter,Frederic J. Gerges,Danielle B. Horn,Casey A. Murphy,Chong Kim,Scott G. Pritzlaff,Cameron Marshall,Gwynne Kirchen,Christine Oryhan,Tejinder S. Swaran Singh,Dawood Sayed,Timothy R. Lubenow,Nalini Sehgal,Charles E. Argoff,Amit Gulati,Miles R. Day,Naum Shaparin,Nabil Sibai,Anterpreet Dua,Meredith Barad,Tejinder S. Swaran Singh

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/papr.13373

IF: 3.079

2024-04-01

Pain Practice

Abstract:Introduction The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) approved the first pain medicine fellowship programs over three decades ago, designed around a pharmacological philosophy. Following that, there has been a rise in the transition of pain medicine education toward a multidisciplinary interventional model based on a tremendous surge of contemporaneous literature in these areas. This trend has created variability in clinical experience and education amongst accredited pain medicine programs with minimal literature evaluating the differences and commonalities in education and experience of different pain medicine fellowships through Program Director (PD) experiences. This study aims to gather insight from pain medicine fellowship program directors across the country to assess clinical and interventional training, providing valuable perspectives on the future of pain medicine education. Methods This study involved 56 PDs of ACGME‐accredited pain fellowship programs in the United States. The recruitment process included three phases: advanced notification, invitation, and follow‐up to maximize response rate. Participants completed a standard online questionnaire, covering various topics such as subcategory fields, online platforms for supplemental education, clinical experience, postgraduate practice success, and training adequacy. Results Surveys were completed by 39/56 (69%) standing members of the Association of Pain Program Directors (APPD). All PDs allowed fellows to participate in industry‐related and professional society‐related procedural workshops, with 59% encouraging these workshops. PDs emphasized the importance of integrity, professionalism, and diligence for long‐term success. Fifty‐four percent of PDs expressed the need for extension of fellowship training to avoid supplemental education by industry or pain/spine societies. Conclusion This study highlights the challenge of providing adequate training in all Pain Medicine subtopics within a 12‐month pain medicine fellowship. PDs suggest the need for additional training for fellows and discuss the importance of curriculum standardization.

clinical neurology,anesthesiology
Predicting the Collapse of Pain Medicine Using the Economic Recession of 2008 as a Comparator: Lessons Remain Unlearned

Sayed E Wahezi,Corey W Hunter,Farshad M Ahadian,Charles E Argoff,Michael E Schatman

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2147/JPR.S471143

2024-07-05

Abstract:The last decade has seen a boom in pain medicine, basic science and interventional pain management. Concomitantly, there is a need to educate trainees, young attendings, and seasoned attendings on these innovations. There has been a growth in the number of societies that represent pain medicine physicians, each with its own philosophy and guiding principles. The variety of thought within pain management, within the various groups that practice this field, and amongst the societies which protect those missions inherently creates divergence and isolation within these different communities. There is the enormous opportunity for our field to grow, but we need the voices of all different specialties and sub-specialties which practice pain medicine to collectively design the future of our emerging field. The explosion of revolutionary percutaneous surgeries, medications, psychotherapy, and research and development in our field has outpaced the ability of payers to fully embrace them. There is an increased number of pain practitioners using novel therapies, postgraduate training programs do not adequately train users in these techniques thereby creating a potential for sub-optimal outcomes. In part, this is a reason why payers for many of our more novel treatments have decreased patient access or eliminated remuneration for some of them. We believe that society-based collaborative regulation of education, research, and treatment guidelines is needed to improve visibility for payers and end users who provide these treatments. Furthermore, postgraduate chronic pain fellowship education has been deemed by many to be insufficient to educate on all of the necessary requirements needed for the independent practice of pain medicine, especially the consummation of newer technologies. Here, we draw comparison with this tenuous stage in pain management history with the last United States recession to remind us of how poor institutional regulation and neglect for long-term growth hampers a community.
From Pain Medicine to Pain Surgery: How Our Specialty Lost Its Way

Scott Pritzlaff,Michael Schatman

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2147/jpr.s496421

IF: 2.8319

2024-09-25

Journal of Pain Research

Abstract:Scott G Pritzlaff, 1 Michael E Schatman 2, 3 1 Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, University of California, Davis, Sacramento, CA, USA; 2 Department of Anesthesiology, Perioperative Care and Pain Medicine, NYU Grossman School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA; 3 Department of Population Health – Division of Medical Ethics, NYU Grossman School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA Correspondence: Michael E Schatman, Department of Anesthesiology, Perioperative Care & Pain Medicine, NYU Grossman School of Medicine, 550 First Avenue, New York, NY, 10016, USA, Tel +1 425-647-4880, Email Dr. Steven Richeimer's 2010 editorial, "Are we lemmings going off a cliff? The case against the "interventional" pain medicine label", raised significant concerns regarding the trajectory of pain medicine at that juncture. 1 Fourteen years later, we find ourselves in an even more disturbing place. The trend regarding which Dr. Richeimer attempted to warn us — labeling ourselves as "interventional pain specialists" — has spiraled into something even more damaging. He suggested that we strive toward the label of "comprehensive pain physicians", as "interventional pain physicians" relegated physicians who treat pain to mere "technician" status. Recently, we have witnessed trainees, and even some programs, viewing (and labeling) pain medicine as "pain surgery", with the emphasis on procedures at the expense of holistic, patient-centered care resulting in the potential devaluation of the profession. We strongly opine that the rise of social media and the overwhelming emphasis on posting advanced procedure photos from the operating room on social media have skewed perceptions of what actually constitutes "pain medicine". While interventional procedures certainly have their place, the oversaturation of devices, therapies, and industry-backed techniques has created overwhelming "noise". More troubling is the rise of unaccredited fellowships, which resemble interventional radiology training programs with an overarching focus on the "procedural fix". Some of these programs ignore the complexities of pain, including psychosocial and comorbid factors. Training has shifted, and many fellows believe that this unfortunate paradigmatic revision is in the best interest of their patients. This is not the future for which we should be aiming. Dr. Richeimer's point regarding the rise of interventional pain medicine driven by financial considerations and convenience is perhaps even more relevant today than was the case 14 years ago. Over the past two years, we have witnessed a significant decrease in applicants for accredited pain fellowships, with many drawn to high-paying anesthesia jobs. 2 Concomitantly, unaccredited fellowships offering purely procedural training are gaining in popularity, much to the dismay of leading pain medicine educators. 3 This is not the comprehensive training that pain physicians need and that our patients deserve. As a field, we must ask ourselves: For what do we stand? Pain medicine, at its core, should be about providing relief and improving the quality of life for patients, not just performing procedures. The shift toward becoming "needle jockeys" or "pain surgeons" undermines our credibility and diminishes the trust patients and other healthcare professionals place in us. Leaders in the field now widely support the extension of training, 4 and we need to ensure that our programs produce well-rounded pain physicians, not mere proceduralists. Technology and interventional therapies are advancing, but our focus must remain on treating the whole patient. Should we fail to return to such focus, we risk losing the very identity of pain medicine as a legitimate specialty. It is time to stop and take a hard look at where we are headed. The path we are on is not sustainable. Social media hype, the powerful influence of industry, and the lure of quick "wins" through procedural work are undermining the future of our field. If we do not act now to redefine what it means to be a pain physician, others—payors, administrators, other specialties, and even the patients we serve—will do it for us. We must shift our focus back to what truly matters: delivering comprehensive, patient-centered care. The time to act is now. Dr Scott Pritzlaff reports personal fees from SPR Therapeutics, Nalu Medical, Bioventus, royalties from Wolters Kluwer, grants from Abbott, Biotronik, Nevro, Medtronic, outside the submitted work. Dr Michael Schatman reports Senior Medical Advisor from Apurano Pharma, outside the submitted work. 1. Richeimer SH. Are we lemmings going off a cliff? The case against the "interventional" pain medicine label. Pain Med Malden Mass . 2010;11(1):3–5. doi:10.1111/j.1526-4637.2009.00765.x 2. Christiansen S, Pritzlaff S, Escobar A, Kohan -Abstract Truncated-

clinical neurology
Not a match: Why women are not choosing pain medicine

Eliana Ege,Lakshmi Koyyalagunta,Saba Javed

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/papr.13381

IF: 3.079

2024-06-04

Pain Practice

Abstract:Background Despite a long history of disparities in medicine, women have made significant progress toward gender equity in medical schools, training programs, and many fields in recent years. However, pain medicine has remained behind most specialties in female recruitment and representation. Methods We reviewed the latest demographic data on practicing physicians, trainees, and applicants with the aim of analyzing gender trends and identifying potential factors contributing to the shortage of women in our specialty. Results Based on data from the past 10 years, the percentages of women among pain physicians, fellows, and applicants have remained stagnant, in contrast to the increases seen not only in the general medical workforce but also in other interventional specialties. Conclusions Given these trends, it is likely that persistent gender disparities and biases play a role in preventing women from pursuing careers in pain, and unlikely that the current trajectory will change unless we take steps to address these and other relevant factors.

clinical neurology,anesthesiology
Shifts in Students' Attitudes Towards Pain Patients, Pain, and Opioid Management Following a Dedicated Medical School Pain Curriculum

Shravani Durbhakula,Tony Wang,Kara Segna,Gerard Limerick,Mustafa Broachwala,Michael Schatman,Munfarid Zaidi,Ingharan Siddarthan,Serkan Toy

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2147/jpr.s447671

IF: 2.8319

2024-03-03

Journal of Pain Research

Abstract:Shravani Durbhakula, 1 Tony Y Wang, 2 Kara G Segna, 2 Gerard R Limerick, 2, 3 Mustafa Y Broachwala, 3 Michael E Schatman, 4 Munfarid A Zaidi, 5 Ingharan James Siddarthan, 6 Serkan Toy 7 1 Department of Anesthesiology, Division of Pain Medicine, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA; 2 Department of Anesthesiology & Critical Care Medicine, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA; 3 Department of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA; 4 Department of Anesthesiology, Perioperative Care, and Pain Medicine, New York University Grossman School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA; 5 Department of Anesthesiology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA; 6 Department of Anesthesiology, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, USA; 7 Departments of Basic Science Education and Health Systems & Implementation Science, Virginia Tech Carilion School of Medicine, Roanoke, VA, USA Correspondence: Shravani Durbhakula, Department of Anesthesiology, Division of Pain Medicine, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA, Email Objective: To examine the immediate effects of a comprehensive pain course on medical students' pre-existing perceptions and attitudes toward pain patients and opioid management. Methods: First-year medical students at a major academic medical center enrolled in a required pre-clerkship pain course in June 2020 and completed pre- and post-course online surveys with Likert-scale questions about their attitudes toward pain management and opioid-related issues. Additionally, the surveys included a free-text question where the students listed the first five words that came to mind when hearing the word "opioids". These words were categorized as "professional" or "lay" words and further as having "positive", "negative", or "neutral" connotations. Data analyses included descriptive statistics, as well as non-parametric and parametric tests. Results: Fifty-four of the 119 students responded to pretest and posttest surveys and were included in paired analyses. There was a significant difference between the number of professional words used before (M=1.21, SD=0.97) and after the course (M=2.40 SD=1.33); t(52)=− 6.39, P < 0.001. Students also used more lay-positive words after the course (M=0.81, SD=0.63) than they used pre-course (M=0.23, SD=0.43); t(51)=− 5.98, P < 0.001. Students' post-course responses to several key Likert-scale questions showed significant shifts toward more positive attitudes about caring for patients with pain. For example, students acknowledged greater comfort in providing opioids for chronic pain ( P < 0.001) where appropriate, and enhanced interest in handling complex pain cases ( P < 0.001). Conclusion: Results showed that a comprehensive, multi-disciplinary pain course could greatly enhance first-year medical students' attitudes toward pain management, chronic pain patients, and the complex issues surrounding opioids. Keywords: medical education, opioids, stigma, epidemic, biases, pain Over 100 million Americans suffer from unremitting chronic pain—exceeding the number of Americans affected by heart disease, cancer, and diabetes combined. 1 The annual economic burden of chronic pain falls between 560 and 635 billion United States dollars. Pain mismanagement—particularly in relation to the opioid crisis—has inflicted substantial individual and public health damage, while being associated with higher pharmacy, emergency department, inpatient, and total healthcare costs. 2 There are 5,871 pain medicine physicians actively practicing. Using data from the United States (US) Census Bureau, we calculate 56,453 Americans per pain medicine physician in contrast to 20,366 per oncologist and 14,717 per cardiologist. 3 Unfortunately, 20% of patients with severe chronic pain never reach a pain specialist; 4 those who do experience a 7.8-year average delay post-referral, seeing an average of 8 other physicians first. 4 Pain management pervasively falls on the shoulders of primary care practitioners, surgeons, oncologists, and others without formal pain training. With unfilled American pain medicine fellowship positions tripling in the last three years, 5 effective pain management will more frequently be expected from those without the appropriate skillsets—exponentiating pain-related mistakes and economic burden. Despite this, pain education in North American medical schools lacks standardization and robustness. The Association of American Med -Abstract Truncated-

clinical neurology
Analysis of the microsurgery fellowship match: 2019–2022 update

J. Reed McGraw,Reena S. Sulkar,Chris Amro,Zachary Gala,Babak J. Mehrara,Alex K. Wong,Stephen J. Kovach,Evan Matros,Saïd C. Azoury

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/micr.31217

2024-07-26

Microsurgery

Abstract:Background A recent analysis of microsurgery fellowship match data published in 2019 demonstrated increased competition for available positions. With growing opportunities in the field, the authors hypothesize that the landscape for both applicants and programs has become more competitive. The aim of this study is to compare two periods of match data to inform residents and programs in microsurgery. Methods Microsurgery fellowship match data was obtained from the San Francisco Match with approval by the American Society for Reconstructive Microsurgery for the years 2014–2022. Data were stratified into the categories of 2016–2018 and 2019–2022. Parameters assessed included: program and position fill rates, match rates, and in‐service examination percentiles. Data were analyzed using Pearson's Chi‐square tests and unpaired t‐tests. Results The median number of participating programs and positions increased to 29 and 47 in 2019–2022, compared with 23 and 40 in 2016–2018. This coincided with a decrease in the number of applicants per position (1.3 [52–40] vs. 1.1 [50–47], p = .45). There was a significant increase in the match rate between groups (67.8% vs. 80.2%, p = .007). Recently, 2022 saw the lowest position fill rate on record, at 75.4% (40 of 53 positions filled), down from 85.3% (35 of 41) in 2018 (p = .35) and 95.6% (43 of 45) in 2019 (p = .006). Mean in‐service examination percentiles for successfully matched applicants did not differ between (2016–2018) and (2019–2022) applicants. Conclusion Recent years have seen a rise in the number of microsurgery fellowship training programs with a decline in the number of applicants. Accordingly, there has been an increased match rate for prospective applicants. Despite this, a pool of unmatched applicants and unfilled positions with training opportunities still remain. The reasons for which are likely multifactorial.

surgery
Analysis of supply and demand for sports medicine fellowship training: 2012–2022

Jason Silvestre,Harris S. Slone,John D. Kelly IV

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/pmrj.13236

2024-07-19

PM&R

Abstract:Background The recruitment of high‐quality applicants is critical to the vitality of the sports medicine physician workforce. Objective To analyze changes in the total number of available training positions, applicants, and unfilled training positions in the Sports Medicine Match from 2012 to 2022. Design This was a retrospective cohort study of sports medicine fellowship applicants. Setting Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education‐accredited sports medicine fellowship training programs. Participants A total of 3763 individuals applying for sports medicine fellowship training from 2012 to 2022. Interventions Not applicable. Main Outcome Measures Annual number of applicants, training positions, and number of unfilled training positions. Results From 2012 to 2022, the annual number of training positions in sports medicine increased from 177 to 353 (99% increase, p .05), second (14%–15%, p > .05), and third (9%–8%, p > .05) ranked programs did not change. The percentage of applicants who did not match decreased (33%–19%, p

rehabilitation,sport sciences
Editorial: Pain Medicine Training in Latin America

Rodrigo Díez-Tafur,Matthew Slitzky,Carlos Guerrero-Nope,Ricardo Plancarte-Sanchez,Jesús Medina-Rascon,Carlos Restrepo-Garces,Juan Felipe Vargas-Silva,Carlos Marcelo Barros,Fabricio Assis,Camila Lobo,Andrés Rocha-Romero,Juan Pablo Paladino,Wendy Rojas-Gareca,César Carcamo-Quezada,Juan Carlos Sosa Nicora,Angie Navarrete,Soraya Cruz Loor,Claudia Cruz-Ayala,Lisbeth Godinez Ortiz,Sudhir Diwan,Michael Schatman,Christopher Robinson,Victor Silva-Ortiz

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2147/jpr.s504547

IF: 2.8319

2024-11-28

Journal of Pain Research

Abstract:Rodrigo Díez-Tafur, 1, 2, &ast Matthew Slitzky, 3, &ast Carlos Guerrero-Nope, 4 Ricardo Plancarte-Sanchez, 5 Jesús Medina-Rascon, 6 Carlos Eduardo Restrepo-Garces, 7 Juan Felipe Vargas-Silva, 8 Carlos Marcelo de Barros, 9 Fabricio Dias Assis, 9 Camila Lobo, 9 Andrés Rocha-Romero, 10 Juan Pablo Paladino, 11 Wendy Rojas-Gareca, 12 César R Carcamo-Quezada, 13 Juan Carlos Sosa Nicora, 14 Angie Navarrete, 15 Soraya Mariuxi Cruz Loor, 16 Claudia B Cruz-Ayala, 17 Lisbeth Godinez Ortiz, 18 Sudhir Diwan, 19 Michael E Schatman, 20, 21 Christopher L Robinson, 22 Victor M Silva-Ortiz 23 1 Pain Management Unit. Clínica Angloamericana, Lima, Perú; 2 Centro MDRS: Sports, Spine & Pain Centers, Lima, Perú; 3 Burke Rehabilitation, Montefiore Health System, White Plains, NY, USA; 4 Pain Management Unit. Hospital Fundación Santa Fe, Bogotá, Colombia; 5 Pain and Palliative Care Department. Instituto Nacional de Cancerología - INCAN, Ciudad de México, México; 6 Medina Medical Specialties, Baja California, Mexico; 7 Chronic Pain Unit. UROGINE, Medellín, Colombia; 8 Interventional Pain Management Unit. Hospital Pablo Tolón Uribe, Medellin, Colombia; 9 Singulair Pain Management Center. Campinas, Sao Paulo, Brasil; 10 Department of Anesthesia and Pain Medicine. National Rehabilitation Center, San Jose, Costa Rica; 11 Centro Medico Villegas, Buenos Aires, Argentina; 12 Aliviar: Centro Especializado en Dolor, Santa Cruz, Bolivia; 13 Pain and Palliative Care Unit. Hospital, Del Salvador, Providencia, Chile; 14 Clinica San Giovanni, Asuncion, Paraguay; 15 Pain Unit, Hospital Escuela Carlos Roberto Huembes, Managua, Nicaragua; 16 Centro Especializado para Tratamiento del Dolor - CETDOL, Guayaquil, Ecuador; 17 Centro Integral Para Manejo Del Dolor. Instituto Salvadoreño de Bienestar Magisterial, San Salvador, El Salvador; 18 Hospital General de Enfermedades (IGSS), Ciudad de Guatemala, Guatemala; 19 Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, NY, USA; 20 Department of Anesthesiology, Perioperative Care and Pain Medicine, NYU Grossman School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA; 21 Department of Population Health - Division of Medical Ethics, NYU Grossman School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA; 22 Department of Anesthesiology, Perioperative, and Pain Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA; 23 Pain Unit, Hospital Zambrano Hellion. Monterrey, Nuevo León, México &astThese authors contributed equally to this work Correspondence: Christopher L Robinson, Department of Anesthesiology, Perioperative, and Pain Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Brigham and Women's Hospital, 75 Francis St, Boston, MA, 02118, USA, Email Despite Latin America being home to approximately six hundred and sixty million people, 1 there is a very small number of certified pain physicians practicing within the region (Table 1) considering the total population. The current shortage of pain management specialists, while a serious issue, also presents a significant opportunity for growth, particularly in expanding education and training within the field. 2,3 Table 1 Total Number of Certificates by Country, Fellow of Interventional Pain Practice (FIPP) and Certified Interventional Pain Sonographer (CIPS) Certified by World Institute of Pain, Pain and MSK Interventional Ultrasound Certificate (PMUC) Certified by American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine, and [Text Wrapping Break]Accredited Doctor in Interventional Pain Techniques (MATID) Certified by Latin American Academy of Interventional Pain Physicians Pain medicine specialists are crucial to combating the significant biopsychosocial challenges pain creates. Fellowship training is essential for obtaining the knowledge and skills necessary for pain management. This editorial describes how pain medicine practice has developed in Latin America in relation to an academic standard for the appropriate development of the specialty. Tackling the global pain crisis requires improved pain education. To address this shortcoming, The United States National Institutes of Medicine designated pain education as a national priority, and The International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP) offers curricula for diverse pain professionals. 4,5 Furthermore, there exists a growing movement to extend the duration of pain medicine fellowships, which have -Abstract Truncated-

clinical neurology
Deconstructing One Medical School’s Pain Curriculum: II. Partnering with Medical Students on an Evidence-Guided Redesign

Ylisabyth S. Bradshaw,Neha Patel Wacks,Alejandra Perez-Tamayo,Brenden Myers,Chukwueloka Obionwu,Rebecca A. Lee,Daniel B. Carr

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/pm/pnw340

IF: 3.637

2017-04-01

Pain Medicine

Abstract:Objective: To reshape medical education about pain to present it as a population-based public health process as well as a neuron-centered phenomenon.Design: Collaborate with students to apply a recent inventory of pain-related preclinical curricular content and clinical training in order to modify the current multiyear presentation and offer a broadened social perspective on pain. Appraise fourth-year medical students' pain-related educational needs by surveying their knowledge, attitudes, experience with the curriculum, and self-reported assessment of pain-related competencies.Setting and subjects: University-affiliated medical school and its fourth-year medical students.Methods: Analysis of a detailed inventory of first- and second-year curricula. Survey of graduating medical students assessing attitudes, skills, and confidence. Construction of a fourth-year pain education elective and collaboration with enrollees to better integrate pain throughout the four-year curriculum.Results: This student-faculty collaboration produced an evidence-guided proposal to reorganize pain-related content across the longitudinal medical curriculum. An attitudes/skills/confidence survey of graduating medical students (104 respondents of 200 polled) found that 70% believed chances for successful outcomes treating chronic pain were low. Self-evaluated competency was high for evaluating (82%) and managing (69%) acute pain; for chronic pain, both were lower (evaluating = 38%; managing = 6%). Self-evaluated knowledge of pain physiology and neurobiology was poor (14%), fair (54%), or good (30%), but rarely excellent (2%).Conclusions: To meet graduating students' desire for increased competency in pain, pain-related curricula can and should be reorganized to include pain as a disease state and a widespread public health burden, not merely a symptom.

medicine, general & internal,anesthesiology
Trends in Orthopaedic Surgery Fellowship Match Among Female Residents: Discrepancies in Sex Diversity by Subspecialty

Malini Anand,Kaitlyn R Julian,Mary K Mulcahey,Stephanie E Wong

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.OA.24.00057

2024-09-13

JBJS Open Access

Abstract:Introduction: There is a historic sex imbalance in the field of orthopaedic surgery in the United States, with female physicians being vastly underrepresented. In addition, this sex imbalance is particularly pronounced in certain subspecialties. As such, we sought to analyze the distribution of graduating female residents and their fellowship match trends from 2017 to 2022. Methods: The American Medical Association Fellowship and Residency Electronic Interactive Database was used to identify all orthopaedic surgery residency programs in the United States during the 2016 to 2017 and the 2021 to 2022 academic years. The data were supplemented with the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) Data Book to include data on all ACGME-accredited programs in 2017 and 2022. The percentage of female orthopaedic surgery residents matching into each subspecialty was calculated. Continuous data were analyzed with independent t test, and significance was set at p < 0.05. Results: From 2017 to 2022, there has been a significant increase in the percentage of female residents matching in orthopaedic surgery fellowships (14.6% vs. 19.5%, p < 0.001). In the orthopaedic hand subspecialty, 24 (15.8%) female residents matched into a hand fellowship in 2017 vs. 56 (35.2%) in 2022 (p < 0.001). Spine, trauma, adult reconstruction, oncology, pediatrics, foot and ankle, shoulder and elbow, and sports medicine fellowships have not seen a significant change in the distribution of female residents matching over the past 5 years. Conclusion: Between 2017 and 2022, the total number of female orthopaedic surgery fellows increased, and there was significant growth in the percentage of matched female fellows in the subspecialty of hand. Other orthopaedic subspecialties including spine, trauma, adult reconstruction, oncology, pediatrics, foot and ankle, shoulder and elbow, and sports medicine have seen no significant change in the distribution of women fellows over the past 5 years. Further investigation is warranted to determine factors leading to growth in certain fellowships among female residents to encourage sex diversity among all subspecialties in orthopaedic surgery.
Perceived barriers to a career in pain medicine in the Republic of Ireland

Mai O'Sullivan,Aine O'Gara

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11845-023-03424-4

Abstract:Background: As the population ages, musculoskeletal disorders are a prominent contributory factor to loss of mobility and autonomy. Pain is a predictor of disability and worsening frailty and the role of the chronic pain specialist in the management of this cohort cannot be overstated. With growing requirements for pain specialists, we sought to identify barriers to recruitment within this specialty. Aims: Establish baseline attitudes and perceived barriers towards a career in pain medicine among Irish anaesthesiology trainees. Suggest a framework to improve recruitment to the specialty. Methods: Ethical approval was obtained. A web-based questionnaire was sent to all anaesthesiologists in training in the Republic of Ireland. Data was analyzed using SPSS. Results: Two hundred forty-eight trainees received the questionnaire, 59 responded. 54.2% male, 45.8% female. 79.7% had previous clinical exposure to pain medicine, most of whom had spent over one month with a service. Only 10.2% of respondents were considering a career in pain medicine. Factors that attracted trainees to the subspeciality included: interventional practice (81%), variation in clinical practice (66.7%), autonomy of practice (61.9%) and perceived good work-life balance (42.9%). Deterrents from the subspecialty included a psychologically challenging patient cohort (69.5%), frequency of clinics (50.8%), and additional exams (32.2%). When asked how to improve engagement with the speciality, 62% suggested earlier exposure to the speciality and 32.2% suggested increased frequency of formal teaching and workshops. Conclusions: Increased exposure of trainees to the specialty during early stages of training may improve future recruitment to the subspecialty in Ireland.
Case-Based Peer Teaching for Pain Medicine Fellows: A Curriculum for Diverse Residency Backgrounds

Nu Chai,Nikhraj Brar,Po-Yi Su

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/pm/pnae098

2024-09-14

Abstract:Introduction: Pain medicine is an advanced medical subspecialty incorporating trainees from diverse primary disciplines. A curriculum that does not assess or promote the trainees' differential expertise developed from their primary specialties may silo instead of promoting collaborative learning in a multidisciplinary subspecialty. Methods: We created a Kern-guided curriculum for the pain medicine fellowship utilizing case-based modules and a novel note-taking and knowledge-sharing format. Nine faculty-led, case-based modules of increasing complexity were developed based on pain medicine competency content. Pain medicine fellows were instructed to actively designate prior and new knowledge into four categories: Prior knowledge that is accurate and relevant, inaccurate prior knowledge, new knowledge gained from peers, and new knowledge for all trainees. After each case study, each fellow acknowledged "new knowledge gained from peers" and prepared a brief teach-back of "new knowledge for all trainees" at the beginning of the next session. Fellow participants were assessed for their reactions to the curriculum via anonymized surveys. Results: The curriculum was implemented at a single institution pain medicine fellowship from 2021 to 2023. At the end of this curriculum, 90% of participants reported improved knowledge retention through participating in this case-based curriculum compared to the traditional didactic format, and 80% participants reported increased respect for their peers. Discussion: We created a novel note-taking and knowledge-sharing platform, anchored by a well-established case-based educational strategy, to improve the learning environment and knowledge retention for multidisciplinary trainees with heterogeneous baseline knowledge.
A 12-Year Analysis of Demand and Supply for Hand Surgery Training in the United States

Jason Silvestre,Benjamin Chang,L Scott Levin,Charles A Daly,Dane N Daley

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/prs.0000000000011749

2024-09-16

Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery

Abstract:Introduction: The consistent recruitment of quality applicants is critical to the integrity of the US surgical workforce. This study assesses the demand and supply for hand surgery training in the US. Methods: This was a cross-sectional analysis of US hand surgery fellowship applicants from 2012 to 2023. Data were obtained from the National Resident Matching Program. Primary outcomes were annual number of hand surgery fellowship applicants, training positions, training programs, and unfilled training positions. Temporal trends were assessed with linear regression. Results: The annual number of hand surgery programs (73 to 93, 27.4% increase, P<0.001) and training positions (150 to 193, 28.7% increase, P<0.001) increased over the study period while the annual number of applicants remained unchanged (199 to 198, P=0.431). The applicant-to-training position ratio decreased over the study period (1.3 to 1.0, P=0.001). The overall match rate increased (73.4% to 95.5%, P<0.001) along with the mean number of submitted ranks per applicant (8.2 to 14.9, P<0.001). The distribution of US allopathic graduates, (91.9%), US osteopathic graduates (4.6%) and international medical graduates (3.5%) was similar over the study period. The rate of applicants matching at their first-choice fellowship increased over the study period (28.1% to 38.4%, P=0.003) while the rate of unmatched applicants decreased (26.6% to 4.5%, P<0.001). Conclusion: There was consistent growth in the number of hand surgery programs and training positions without a commensurate increase in the number of interested applicants. Increased recruitment efforts are necessary to ensure adequate demand for available training positions in hand surgery.

surgery
The First National Pain Medicine Summit--final summary report

Philipp M Lippe,Charles Brock,Jose David,Ronald Crossno,Stuart Gitlow

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1526-4637.2010.00961.x

Abstract:Pain is ubiquitous. At some point in time it affects everyone. For many millions pain becomes chronic, a scourge that impacts every facet of life-work, hobbies, family relations, social fabric, finances, happiness, mood, and even the very essence of identity. According to the National Institutes of Health (NIH), pain is one of our most important national public health problems, a silent epidemic. In 1998, NIH reported that the annual amount spent on health care, compensation, and litigation related to pain had reached one hundred billion dollars ($100,000,000,000). Considering that health care costs have doubled since then, it is not unreasonable to assume that the costs related to pain care have doubled as well. Millions of patients suffer needlessly with acute pain, with cancer pain, and with chronic pain. The ineffective management of pain results in an escalating cascade of health care issues. Acute pain that is not treated adequately and promptly results in persistent pain that eventually causes irreversible changes in the nervous system. This translates into progressive bio-psycho-social epiphenomena resulting in further pain and disability. It creates a vicious cycle transforming a functional human being into an invalid who becomes a burden to family, to society, and to oneself. In the face of adequate medical science, adequate technical skills, and adequate resources the reality of delayed and inadequate pain care is paradoxical. This dilemma deserves close scrutiny and effective remediation. The American Medical Association (AMA), long dedicated to the need to improve pain care in this country, has been faced with this reality. It was from this vision that the idea of holding a Pain Medicine Summit was conceived. Resolution 321 (A-08) set in motion a process that would bring together a diverse group of stakeholders for the purpose of discussing the present and future status of pain care; a process that culminated in a broad-based coalition of physicians and organizations dedicated to improving pain care, the first National Pain Medicine Summit. The process began with the adoption of Resolution 321 (A-08) at an AMA Annual House of Delegates meeting in June 2008. Resolution 321 (A-08) states, in part, that "...the AMA encourages relevant specialties to collaborate in studying: 1) the scope and practice and body of knowledge encompassed by the field of Pain Medicine; 2) the adequacy of undergraduate, graduate, and post graduate education in the principles and practices of the field of Pain Medicine, considering the current and anticipated medical need for the delivery of quality pain care; and 3) appropriate training and credentialing criteria for this multi-disciplinary field of medical practice." The next step was delegating the responsibility for implementing Resolution 321 (A-08) to the Pain and Palliative Medicine Specialty Section Council (PPMSSC). The PPMSSC, under the direction of its chairman, Philipp M. Lippe, MD, FACS, assumed responsibility in November 2008 for identifying a process that would achieve the goals established by Resolution 321 (A-08). The PPMSSC in turn established an Advisory Committee, charged with strategic planning, and an Implementation Committee, charged with tactical operations. The two groups began work immediately. The process included three distinct phases centered on a Pain Medicine Summit. Phase One involved a modified Delphi process identifying the five most pressing and relevant themes in pain care. Phase Two consisted of the Pain Medicine Summit itself, including a gathering of representatives from across the pain care spectrum to address the previously identified five most pressing themes. Phase Three was the preparation of this report, which describes the conclusions drawn and recommendations developed by the attendees at the Pain Medicine Summit. Based on a recommendation from the Advisory Committee, the PPMSSC decided to retain the services of a consulting firm to help the PPMSSC implement the Pain Medicine Summit process. In August 2009, PPMSSC selected Grey Matters, a New York-based advisory firm. The PPMSSC also appointed a Steering Committee to assist Grey Matters and to coordinate all activities. The Committee consisted of Charles Brock, MD; Ronald Crossno, MD; Jose David, MD; Michel Dubois, MD; Albert Ray, MD; and Philipp M. Lippe, MD, FACS (chair). The consulting firm, Grey Matters, proposed a multi-phasic process in order to facilitate the implementation of the Pain Medicine Summit and to ensure a coordinated, efficient, and productive outcome. This process consisting of three phases-pre-summit, summit, and post-summit-is described in detail in the following section. All aspects of the project were closely coordinated and supervised by the Steering Committee, which included the selection of the team leaders of the five Workgroups, based on specific criteria. The Pain Medicine Summit, adhering to the dictates of Resolution 321 (A-08), explored the body of knowledge and the scope of practice of Pain Medicine; the education and training in medical school, graduate, and postgraduate programs; and the credentialing and certification processes in the field of Pain Medicine. It addressed the barriers hampering delivery of high quality pain care. It recognized the need for clarification and consensus in many areas. Several points of consensus emerged: The continuum of medical education in the field of Pain Medicine is inadequate and fragmented. It needs to be fortified in scope, content, and duration. Credentialing and certification processes in Pain Medicine are variable, diverse, and deficient in many instances. Deficiencies in these areas lead to suboptimal and fragmented pain care having a negative impact on direct patient care and public health. Effective and prompt remediation is desirable and essential to achieving the goal of high quality pain care. Barriers exist inhibiting or retarding progress toward the common good. There are several viable avenues to achieving our stated goal, "excellence in the delivery of high quality, cost-effective pain care to the patients we serve," including the development of Pain Medicine as a distinct specialty with ACGME accredited residency programs and ABMS certification. The Pain Medicine Summit concluded with a number of recommendations, including the following: That the pain community remains engaged in addressing the issues raised and in mitigating the barriers. That the recommendations be referred to the AMA and the PPMSSC for support and implementation. That another national Pain Medicine Summit with enhanced participation be convened. That consideration be given to convening an International Pain Summit in conjunction with the IASP World Congress in Montreal. That the final report of the Pain Medicine Summit be widely disseminated.
Summer undergraduate research: A new pipeline for pain clinical practice and research

Benedict J. Kolber,Jelena M. Janjic,John A. Pollock,Kevin J. Tidgewell

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-016-0648-7

IF: 3.263

2016-05-04

BMC Medical Education

Abstract:BackgroundMost medical schools fail to provide adequate training of clinicians in the treatment of pain. Similarly, despite the fact that over 1/3 of Americans suffer from chronic pain, National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding for pain represents only ~1 % of the NIH budget. These issues may dissuade students from pursing pain in their clinical and research careers. To address these gaps in training and funding, we argue that exposing students to pain science early in their careers, at the undergraduate level, may be an effective method to develop a pipeline for future pain clinicians and scientists. To highlight our argument, we will describe our recent successful implementation of a cross-disciplinary and community-engaged biomedical summer research program. The Pain Undergraduate Research Experience (PURE) summer program involved both off-site and on-site experiences to expose undergraduate students to the range of careers in the pain field from basic science to clinical practice. The objective of the 10-week long PURE program was to evaluate whether a combination of basic science research, clinical practice visits, and patient interactions would increase student understanding of and exposure to the underlying science of pain.MethodsA pre-post cohort study was used without a comparison group. Entry and exit surveys were used to evaluate students’ perceptions about pain clinical practice and research, student interest in pain, and student confidence about communicating about pain and doing basic science pain research.ResultsStudents reported significant increases to a number of questions in the survey. Questions were scored on 5 point Likert scales and there was significant increases in student understanding of what life is like with chronic pain (2.6 vs 4.3 post survey), their confidence in explaining pain to a patient (2.8 vs 4.1) or researcher (2.8 vs 4), and their comfort with pain terminology(2.8 vs 3.9).ConclusionsWith the PURE program, we wanted to entice top undergraduates to consider pain as a future area of study, practice, and/or research. We present a model that can be easily implemented at research universities throughout the United States.

education & educational research,education, scientific disciplines
The Lyceum for Pain Education: Providing Accessible Education on Chronic Pain and Headaches to a Global Audience

Roxanne Bavarian,Tamunodiyepriye Ngo,Michael Schatman,Ronald Kulich

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2147/jpr.s470973

IF: 2.8319

2024-04-13

Journal of Pain Research

Abstract:Roxanne Bavarian, 1, 2 Tamunodiyepriye Gift Ngo, 3 Michael E Schatman, 4, 5 Ronald J Kulich 3, 6 1 Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA; 2 Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Harvard School of Dental Medicine, Boston, MA, USA; 3 Orofacial Pain Center, Tufts University School of Dental Medicine, Boston, MA, USA; 4 Department of Anesthesiology, Perioperative Care, & Pain Medicine, NYU Grossman School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA; 5 Department of Population Health – Division of Medical Ethics, NYU Grossman School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA; 6 Department of Anesthesia, Critical Care and Pain Medicine/Department of Psychiatry Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA Correspondence: Michael E Schatman, Department of Anesthesiology, Perioperative Care & Pain Medicine, NYU Grossman School of Medicine, 550 First Avenue, New York, NY, 10016, USA, Tel +1 425-647-4880, Email Educational efforts in pain medicine have been a mainstay of international academic organizations for more than 50 years. For example, the International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP) was one of the first of these organizations, and continues today with a mission that includes "exchange of ideas and education to stimulate and support the study of pain and to translate that knowledge into improved pain relief worldwide". 1 However, as commercial industry sponsors found an audience for the marketing of their products and services, a number of pain educational groups went awry. By the late 1990s, external forces seemingly brought increased accountability to the field, and efforts were made to improve educational programs with transparency regarding conflicts of interest and to deliver more evidence-based content and decrease bias. Nonetheless, the problem remains especially challenging within the field of chronic pain, an area of practice in which a number of treatments continue to be supported despite inconsistent evidence for safety and efficacy. Multiple challenges continue to face pain educators today, such as upholding standards of academic integrity, minimizing conflicts of interest and bias, and maintaining interdisciplinary communication, while remaining accessible for healthcare providers, researchers, patients, and other stakeholders. The Lyceum for Pain Education and its weekly Interdisciplinary Pain and Headache Rounds offer one such template to meet these challenges and mitigate common problems with pain education. Upon switching to a virtual format after 20 years due to the COVID-19 crisis, these seminars provide evidence-based continuing education (CE) to clinicians, researchers, and public policy makers who have an interest in a wide variety of pain topics. The programs are provided at no cost to attendees, with sponsorship derived from philanthropic efforts as opposed to industry funding. In this article, we discuss the challenges that face CE and our experience in navigating them. One significant problem that faced many CE offerings in the late 1990s was not only due to the impact of industry bias, but due to the absence of independent scientific reviewers. 2 For example, a 2007 annual report from the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME) determined that more than 30,000 CME activities each year were sponsored by for-profit medical education and communication centers that received approximately 90% of their income from commercial support. 2,3 In our experience, many CE committees play a minimal role in vetting the materials that they sponsor. Rather, speakers are recruited by program planners who are thought to be experts in the field. This model of recruitment is in contrast to the model typically utilized in scientific writing and publishing, in which a critical independent review of the scientific content is necessary. The field of pain medicine can easily find itself susceptible to "junk science", alongside any other field in which patient suffering is great, treatment pathways are weak, and financial incentives persist. Some may be surprised that these issues are not new, and in fact, clinicians and academicians in the 19th century fought the same battles. Oliver Wendell Holmes Sr., an early champion of evidence-based medicine, lectured and wrote extensively on the issue: "When a half-starving medical man felt that he must give his patient draught and boluses for which he could charge him, he was in a pitiable position and too likely to persuade himself that his drugs were useful to his patient because they were profitable to him". 4 At the Lyceum for Pain Education, our Board of Directors consists of specialists in neurology, pain psychology, nursing, orofacial -Abstract Truncated-

clinical neurology

The vascular formations in glioblastoma.

Post-Doctoral Training in Pain Medicine: Too Little, Yet Not Too Late?

Declining pain medicine fellowship applications from 2019 to 2024: A concerning trend among anesthesia residents and a growing gender disparity

Current state of the pain medicine match: perspective and an eye to the future

Trainee Insight into Pain Fellowship Programs: A Critical Evaluation of the Current Educational System by the APPD

The current state of training in pain medicine fellowships: An Association of Pain Program Directors (APPD) survey of program directors

Predicting the Collapse of Pain Medicine Using the Economic Recession of 2008 as a Comparator: Lessons Remain Unlearned

From Pain Medicine to Pain Surgery: How Our Specialty Lost Its Way

Not a match: Why women are not choosing pain medicine

Shifts in Students' Attitudes Towards Pain Patients, Pain, and Opioid Management Following a Dedicated Medical School Pain Curriculum

Analysis of the microsurgery fellowship match: 2019–2022 update

Analysis of supply and demand for sports medicine fellowship training: 2012–2022

Editorial: Pain Medicine Training in Latin America

Deconstructing One Medical School’s Pain Curriculum: II. Partnering with Medical Students on an Evidence-Guided Redesign

Trends in Orthopaedic Surgery Fellowship Match Among Female Residents: Discrepancies in Sex Diversity by Subspecialty

Perceived barriers to a career in pain medicine in the Republic of Ireland

Case-Based Peer Teaching for Pain Medicine Fellows: A Curriculum for Diverse Residency Backgrounds

A 12-Year Analysis of Demand and Supply for Hand Surgery Training in the United States

The First National Pain Medicine Summit--final summary report

Summer undergraduate research: A new pipeline for pain clinical practice and research

The Lyceum for Pain Education: Providing Accessible Education on Chronic Pain and Headaches to a Global Audience