In the United States, people with disabilities experience disparities in health and health care. Disparities stem from inadequate insurance coverage, physically and culturally inaccessible health care facilities, pervasive harmful misconceptions about disability, and incomprehensive epidemiologic data regarding disability. In this position paper, the American College of Physicians offers recommendations to alleviate health disparities among people with disabilities through policy changes in areas such as health insurance coverage, accessibility of health care facilities, health professional education, research participation, and data collection.

Over the past several decades, federal laws have instituted sweeping antidiscrimination protections to foster inclusion for people with disabilities in education and employment, but substantial barriers remain to full and meaningful inclusion in the practice of medicine. In this position paper, the American College of Physicians (ACP) highlights the barriers to entering medicine and offers policy recommendations to improve the accessibility of medical schools, training programs, and the practice of medicine. ACP affirms that a diverse physician workforce, inclusive of disability, is a key component of reducing disparities in health and health care.

The American College of Physicians (ACP) developed these rapid practice points addressing the efficacy, comparative effectiveness, and harms of respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) vaccines in adults aged 18 years or older who are not pregnant or immunocompromised.

There is no proven treatment to alleviate symptoms of postacute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection (PASC), despite its substantial public health burden.

The American College of Physicians (ACP) developed these rapid practice points addressing the effectiveness, comparative effectiveness, and harms of Omicron-adapted COVID-19 vaccines in adults (aged ≥18 years) who are not pregnant or immunocompromised.

The SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant continues to pose a global health burden.

Assessing risk of bias and applicability is critical in diagnostic test accuracy reviews to ensure valid, relevant findings that can inform decision making and policy. This article introduces QUADAS-3, an updated version of the widely used QUADAS-2 tool that was developed in response to the latest evidence, feedback from users of QUADAS-2, and comprehensive piloting. The QUADAS-3 tool comprises 6 phases: 1) define the systematic review synthesis question, 2) define the ideal test accuracy trial for each synthesis question, 3) draw a flow diagram, 4) identify estimates of accuracy for assessment, 5) assess risk of bias and applicability, and 6) make an overall judgment. Risk of bias is assessed across 4 domains: Participants, Index Test, Target Condition, and Analysis. The first 3 domains are also assessed in terms of concerns regarding applicability to the synthesis question. Signaling questions are included to help judge risk of bias. The QUADAS-3 tool incorporates several changes compared with the previous version (QUADAS-2) which will ideally improve its validity, usability, and usefulness. Key changes from QUADAS-2 include introduction of the concept of an ideal test accuracy trial, assessment at the estimate level rather than the study level, replacement of the "Flow and Timing" domain with a new "Analysis" domain, introduction of sections on the rationale for judgments, and formal introduction of overall judgment of risk of bias and concerns regarding applicability. Some changes to domains and signaling questions have also been made.

The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) updated the 2019 joint clinical practice guideline (CPG) for the primary care management of asthma. This synopsis provides primary care providers with a summary of the updated 2025 recommendations regarding evaluation and management of veterans and military members with asthma.

Assessing risk of bias and applicability is essential in diagnostic test accuracy reviews to produce reliable and relevant evidence that can guide clinical and policy decisions. To support this process, the authors have developed QUADAS-3, the latest version of the QUADAS tool, which is designed to assess the methodological strength and relevance of diagnostic test accuracy studies included in systematic reviews. This article explains how to use the QUADAS-3 tool. The article guides the reviewer through the initial stages of defining the questions and conceptualizing the ideal test accuracy trial, how the domains and signaling questions should be interpreted and assessed, and how judgments of risk of bias and concerns regarding applicability should be made. Authors of systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy studies should use this article as a guide for applying the QUADAS-3 tool.