Gender disparities in advanced endoscopy fellowship.

Background and study aims Women remain underrepresented in gastroenterology, especially advanced endoscopy. Women represent 30 % of general gastroenterology fellows; yet in 2019, only 12.8 % of fellows who matched into advanced endoscopy fellowship (AEF) programs were women. Methods We administered a web-based survey to the program directors (PDs) of AEF programs that participated in the 2018-2019 American Society for Gastroenterology (ASGE) match. We assessed PD and program characteristics, in addition to perceived barriers and facilitators (scale 1-5, 5 = most important) influencing women pursuing AEF training. Results We received 38 (59.3 %) responses from 64 PDs. 15.8 % (6/38) of AEF PDs and 13.2 % (5/38) of endoscopy chiefs were women. By program, women represented 14.8 % (mean) ± 17.0 % (SD) of AEF faculty and 12.0 % (mean) ± 11.1 % (SD) of AEF trainees over the past 10 years. 47.4 % (18/38) programs reported no female advanced endoscopy faculty and 31.6 % (12/38) of programs have never had a female fellow. Percentage of female fellows was strongly associated with percentage of female AEF faculty (ß = 0.43, P  < 0.001). Inflexible hours and call (mean rank 3.3 ±â€Š1.1), exposure to fluoroscopy (2.9 ±â€Š1.1), lack of women endoscopists at national conferences/courses (2.9 ±â€Š1.1) and lack of female mentorship (2.9 ±â€Š1.0) were cited as the most important barriers to recruitment. Conclusion We utilized a survey of AEF PDs participating in the ASGE match to determine program characteristics and identify contributors to gender disparity. Women represent a minority of AEF PDs, endoscopy chiefs, advanced endoscopy faculty and AEF trainees. Our study highlights perceived barriers and facilitators to recruitment, and emphasizes the importance of having female representation in faculty, and leadership positions in endoscopy.

New technologies improve adenoma detection rate, adenoma miss rate, and polyp detection rate: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The need to increase the adenoma detection rate (ADR) for colorectal cancer screening has ushered in devices that mechanically or optically improve conventional colonoscopy. Recently, new technology devices (NTDs) have become available. We aimed to compare the ADR, polyp detection rate (PDR), and adenoma miss rate (AMR) between NTDs and conventional colonoscopy and between mechanical and optical NTDs. METHODS: MEDLINE and Embase databases were searched from inception through September 2017 for articles or abstracts reporting ADR, PDR, and AMR with NTDs. Randomized controlled trials and case-control studies with >10 subjects were included. Primary outcomes included ADR, PDR, and AMR odds ratio (OR) between conventional colonoscopy and NTDs. Secondary outcomes included cecal intubation rates, adverse events, cecal intubation time, and total colonoscopy time. RESULTS: From 141 citations, 45 studies with 20,887 subjects were eligible for ≥1 analyses. Overall, the ORs for ADR (1.35; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.24-1.47; P < .01) and PDR (1.51; 95% CI, 1.37-1.67; P < .01) were higher with NTDs. Higher ADR (OR, 1.52 vs 1.25; P = .035) and PDR (OR, 1.63 vs 1.10; P ≤ .01) were observed with mechanical NTDs. The overall AMR with NTDs was lower compared with conventional colonoscopy (OR, .19; 95% CI, .14-.26; P < .01). Mechanical NTDs had lower AMRs compared with optical NTDs (OR, .10 vs .33; P < .01). No differences in cecal intubation rates, cecal intubation time, or total colonoscopy time were found. CONCLUSIONS: Newer endoscopic technologies are an effective option to improve ADR and PDR and decrease AMR, particularly with mechanical NTDs. No differences in operability and safety were found.