Risk of Cesarean Delivery Among People With Inflammatory Bowel Disease According to Disease Characteristics: A Population-Based Study.

OBJECTIVES: It is unclear if use of cesarean delivery in people with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is guideline-concordant. We compared the odds of cesarean delivery among primiparous individuals with IBD versus without, overall, and by disease characteristics, as well as time to subsequent delivery. METHODS: Retrospective matched population-based cohort study between 1 April 1994 and 31 March 2020. Primiparous individuals aged 15-55 years with IBD were matched to those without IBD on age, year, hospital, and number of newborns delivered. Primary outcome was cesarean delivery versus vaginal delivery. Multivariable conditional logistic regression analyses were performed to estimate the odds of cesarean delivery among individuals with and without IBD as a binary exposure, and a categorical exposure based on IBD-related indications for cesarean delivery. Time to subsequent delivery was evaluated using a Cox proportional hazard model. RESULTS: We matched 7472 individuals with IBD to 37 360 individuals without (99.02% match rate). Individuals with IBD were categorised as having perianal (PA) disease (IBD-PA, n = 764, 10.2%), prior ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (n = 212, 2.8%), or IBD-Other (n = 6496, 86.9%). Cesarean delivery rates were 35.4% in the IBD group versus 30.4% in their controls (adjusted odds ratio 1.27; 95% CI 1.20-1.34). IBD-ileal pouch-anal anastomosis had a cesarean delivery rate of 66.5%, compared to 49.9% in IBD-PA and 32.7% in IBD-Other. There was no significant difference in the rate of subsequent delivery in those with and without IBD (adjusted hazard ratio 1.03,;95% CI 1-1.07). CONCLUSIONS: The higher risk of cesarean delivery in people with IBD reflects guideline-concordant use. Individuals with and without IBD were equally likely to have a subsequent delivery with similar timing.

Satisfaction and attrition in Canadian surgical training program leadership: a survey of program directors.

BACKGROUND: Surgical program directors (PDs) play an integral role in the well-being and success of postgraduate trainees. Although studies about medical specialties have documented factors contributing to PD burnout, early attrition rates and contributory factors among surgical PDs have not yet been described. We aimed to evaluate Canadian surgical PD satisfaction, stressors in the role and areas institutions could target to improve PD support. METHODS: We administered a cross-sectional survey of postgraduate Canadian surgical PDs from all Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada accredited surgical specialties. Domains we assessed included PD demographics and compensation, availability of administrative support, satisfaction with the PD role and factors contributing to PD challenges and burnout. RESULTS: Sixty percent of eligible surgical PDs (81 out of 134) from all 12 surgical specialties responded to the survey. We found significant heterogeneity in PD tenure, compensation models and available administrative support. All respondents reported exceeding their weekly protected time for the PD position, and 66% received less than 0.8 full-time equivalent of administrative support. One-third of respondents were satisfied with overall compensation, whereas 43% were unhappy with compensatory models. Most respondents (70%) enjoyed many aspects of the PD role, including relationships with trainees and shaping the education of future surgeons. Significant stressors included insufficient administrative support, complexities in resident remediation and inadequate compensation, which contributed to 37% of PDs having considered leaving the post prematurely. INTERPRETATION: Most surgical PDs enjoyed the role. However, intersecting factors such as disproportionate time demands, lack of administrative support and inadequate compensation for the role contributed to significant stress and risk of early attrition.

Evidence for the Current Management of Soft-tissue Sarcoma and Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors and Emerging Directions.

Soft-tissue sarcoma (STS) is not a single entity but, rather, a family of diseases with differing biologic behaviors and anatomic site- and histotype-specific responses to treatment. Whereas surgery remains the mainstay of treatment of primary, localized disease, evolving evidence is establishing the role of multimodality treatment of these tumors. This article summarizes prospective evidence to date informing our treatment of STS. Key future directions will include advancing our understanding of fundamental tumor biology and mechanisms of response and recurrence, as well as defining the optimal provision of regional, systemic, and targeted therapies, including the role of immunotherapy. Ongoing global collaborations will be integral to progress in treating these rare tumors.

Sex Differences in the Pattern of Patient Referrals to Male and Female Surgeons.

Importance: Studies have found that female surgeons have fewer opportunities to perform highly remunerated operations, a circumstance that contributes to the sex-based pay gap in surgery. Procedures performed by surgeons are, in part, determined by the referrals they receive. In the US and Canada, most practicing physicians who provide referrals are men. Whether there are sex-based differences in surgical referrals is unknown. Objective: To examine whether physicians' referrals to surgeons are influenced by the sex of the referring physician and/or surgeon. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional, population-based study used administrative databases to identify outpatient referrals to surgeons in Ontario, Canada, from January 1, 1997, to December 31, 2016, with follow-up to December 31, 2018. Data analysis was performed from April 7, 2019, to May 14, 2021. Exposures: Referring physician sex. Main Outcomes and Measures: This study compared the proportion of referrals (overall and those referrals that led to surgery) made by male and female physicians to male and female surgeons to assess associations between surgeon, referring physician, or patient characteristics and referral decisions. Discrete choice modeling was used to examine the extent to which sex differences in referrals were associated with physicians' preferences for same-sex surgeons. Results: A total of 39 710 784 referrals were made by 44 893 physicians (27 792 [61.9%] male) to 5660 surgeons (4389 [77.5%] male). Female patients made up a greater proportion of referrals to female surgeons than to male surgeons (76.8% vs 55.3%, P < .001). Male surgeons accounted for 77.5% of all surgeons but received 87.1% of referrals from male physicians and 79.3% of referrals from female physicians. Female surgeons less commonly received procedural referrals than male surgeons (25.4% vs 33.0%, P < .001). After adjusting for patient and referring physician characteristics, male physicians referred a greater proportion of patients to male surgeons than did female physicians; differences were greatest among referrals from other surgeons (rate ratio, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.13-1.16). Female physicians had a 1.6% (95% CI, 1.4%-1.9%) greater odds of same-sex referrals, whereas male physicians had a 32.0% (95% CI, 31.8%-32.2%) greater odds of same-sex referrals; differences did not attenuate over time. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional, population-based study, male physicians appeared to have referral preferences for male surgeons; this disparity is not narrowing over time or as more women enter surgery. Such preferences lead to lower volumes of and fewer operative referrals to female surgeons and are associated with sex-based inequities in medicine.

Building the What Comes Next Cohort for BRCA1 and BRCA2 testing: a descriptive analysis.

BACKGROUND: Our understanding of how testing for and mutations of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes affect cancer risk and the use of risk-reduction strategies comes largely from studies of women recruited from specialized genetics clinics. Our aim was to assemble a generalizable cohort of women who underwent BRCA1/BRCA2 testing (the What Comes Next Cohort), irrespective of test result, to enable study of health care utilization and outcomes after testing. METHODS: This descriptive study included adult women (≥ 18 yr) who met at least 1 of 13 provincial criteria for BRCA1/BRCA2 testing and who underwent genetic testing at sites in Ontario, Canada, from 2007 to 2016. Most of the women were tested at 1 of 2 main sites, which together capture about 70% of all BRCA1/BRCA2 testing in the province. We collected detailed demographic, genetic testing and family history data through chart review for linkage with data from administrative health databases providing information on cancer history before and after testing. We followed all women to September 2019, evaluating the demographic characteristics of the cohort, indications for testing and test results. RESULTS: We identified 15 986 women (mean age 52.5 [standard deviation 13.9] yr) who underwent BRCA1/BRCA2 testing. Of these, 2033 women had positive results, 1175 women had variants of uncertain significance, and 12 778 women had negative results. Positive yields were 41.0% (955/2329) for predictive testing (for familial variants), 10.4% (216/2072) for Ashkenazi Jewish founder testing and 7.4% (862/11 585) for complete gene analysis. Six of the 13 provincial testing criteria had less than 10% positive yield. Among 403 women who tested negative for Ashkenazi Jewish founder mutations and subsequently underwent complete gene analysis, 12 (3.0%) tested positive for alternate pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants in the BRCA1 or BRCA2 gene. INTERPRETATION: Several provincial eligibility criteria for BRCA1/BRCA2 testing led to positive results in less than 10% of cases. How testing influences women's health care behaviours, particularly those with negative results and those found to carry variants of uncertain significance, is unknown; the What Comes Next Cohort will be instrumental in the study of long-term implications of BRCA1/BRCA2 testing.

Gender differences in faculty rank among academic physicians: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Many studies have analysed gender bias in academic medicine; however, no comprehensive synthesis of the literature has been performed. We conducted a pooled analysis of the difference in the proportion of men versus women with full professorship among academic physicians. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Education Resources Information Center and PsycINFO were searched from inception to 3 July 2020. STUDY SELECTION: All original studies reporting faculty rank stratified by gender worldwide were included. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Study screening, data extraction and quality assessment were performed by two independent reviewers, with a third author resolving discrepancies. Meta-analysis was conducted using random-effects models. RESULTS: Our search yielded 5897 articles. 218 studies were included with 991 207 academic physician data points. Men were 2.77 times more likely to be full professors (182 271/643 790 men vs 30 349/251 501 women, OR 2.77, 95% CI 2.57 to 2.98). Although men practised for longer (median 18 vs 12 years, p<0.00002), the gender gap remained after pooling seven studies that adjusted for factors including time in practice, specialty, publications, h-index, additional PhD and institution (adjusted OR 1.83, 95% CI 1.04 to 3.20). Meta-regression by data collection year demonstrated improvement over time (p=0.0011); however, subgroup analysis showed that gender disparities remain significant in the 2010-2020 decade (OR 2.63, 95% CI 2.48 to 2.80). The gender gap was present across all specialties and both within and outside of North America. Men published more papers (mean difference 17.2, 95% CI 14.7 to 19.7), earned higher salaries (mean difference $33 256, 95% CI $25 969 to $40 542) and were more likely to be departmental chairs (OR 2.61, 95% CI 2.19 to 3.12). CONCLUSIONS: Gender inequity in academic medicine exists across all specialties, geographical regions and multiple measures of success, including academic rank, publications, salary and leadership. Men are more likely than women to be full professors after controlling for experience, academic productivity and specialty. Although there has been some improvement over time, the gender disparity in faculty rank persists. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020197414.

Social Media and mHealth Technology for Cancer Screening: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Cancer is a leading cause of death, and although screening can reduce cancer morbidity and mortality, participation in screening remains suboptimal. OBJECTIVE: This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to evaluate the effectiveness of social media and mobile health (mHealth) interventions for cancer screening. METHODS: We searched for randomized controlled trials and quasi-experimental studies of social media and mHealth interventions promoting cancer screening (breast, cervical, colorectal, lung, and prostate cancers) in adults in MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Scopus, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Communication & Mass Media Complete from January 1, 2000, to July 17, 2020. Two independent reviewers screened the titles, abstracts, and full-text articles and completed the risk of bias assessments. We pooled odds ratios for screening participation using the Mantel-Haenszel method in a random-effects model. RESULTS: We screened 18,008 records identifying 39 studies (35 mHealth and 4 social media). The types of interventions included peer support (n=1), education or awareness (n=6), reminders (n=13), or mixed (n=19). The overall pooled odds ratio was 1.49 (95% CI 1.31-1.70), with similar effect sizes across cancer types. CONCLUSIONS: Screening programs should consider mHealth interventions because of their promising role in promoting cancer screening participation. Given the limited number of studies identified, further research is needed for social media interventions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42019139615; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=139615. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.1136/bmjopen-2019-035411.

Improving the reporting of non-inferiority trials by incorporating non-efficacy benefits: not all non-inferiority trials are created equal.

Non-inferiority trials are used to test if a novel intervention is not worse than a standard treatment by more than a prespecified amount, the non-inferiority margin (ΔNI). The ΔNI indicates the amount of efficacy loss in the primary outcome that is acceptable in exchange for non-efficacy benefits in other outcomes. However, non-inferiority designs are sometimes used when non-efficacy benefits are absent. Without non-efficacy benefits, loss in efficacy cannot be easily justified. Further, non-efficacy benefits are scarcely defined or considered by trialists when determining the magnitude of and providing justification for the non-inferiority margin. This is problematic as the importance of a treatment's non-efficacy benefits are critical to understanding the results of a non-inferiority study. Here we propose the routine reporting in non-inferiority trial protocols and publications of non-efficacy benefits of the novel intervention along with the reporting of non-inferiority margins and their justification. The justification should include the specific trade-off between the accepted loss in efficacy (ΔNI) and the non-efficacy benefits of the novel treatment and should describe whether patients and other relevant stakeholders were involved in the definition of the ΔNI.

A population-based analysis of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on common abdominal and gynecological emergency department visits.

BACKGROUND: Reduced use of the emergency department during the COVID-19 pandemic may result in increased disease acuity when patients do seek health care services. We sought to evaluate emergency department visits for common abdominal and gynecologic conditions before and at the beginning of the pandemic to determine whether changes in emergency department attendance had serious consequences for patients. METHODS: We conducted a population-based analysis using administrative data to evaluate the weekly rate of emergency department visits pre-COVID-19 (Jan. 1-Mar. 10, 2020) and during the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic (Mar. 11-June 30, 2020), compared with a historical control period (Jan. 1-July 1, 2019). All residents of Ontario, Canada, presenting to the emergency department with appendicitis, cholecystitis, ectopic pregnancy or miscarriage were included. We evaluated weekly incidence rate ratios (IRRs) of emergency department visits, management strategies and clinical outcomes. RESULTS: Across all study periods, 39 691 emergency department visits met inclusion criteria (40.2 % appendicitis, 32.1% miscarriage, 21.3% cholecystitis, 6.4% ectopic pregnancy). Baseline characteristics of patients presenting to the emergency department did not vary across study periods. After an initial reduction in emergency department visits, presentations for cholecystitis and ectopic pregnancy quickly returned to expected levels. However, presentations for appendicitis and miscarriage showed sustained reductions (IRR 0.61-0.80), with 1087 and 984 fewer visits, respectively, after the start of the pandemic, relative to 2019. Management strategies, complications and mortality rates were similar across study periods for all conditions. INTERPRETATION: Although our study showed evidence of emergency department avoidance in Ontario during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, no adverse consequences were evident. Emergency care and outcomes for patients were similar before and during the pandemic.

Sedation practices for routine gastrointestinal endoscopy: a systematic review of recommendations.

BACKGROUND: Sedation is commonly used in gastrointestinal endoscopy; however, considerable variability in sedation practices has been reported. The objective of this review was to identify and synthesize existing recommendations on sedation practices for routine gastrointestinal endoscopy procedures. METHODS: We systematically reviewed guidelines and position statements identified through a search of PubMed, guidelines databases, and websites of relevant professional associations from January 1, 2005 to May 10, 2019. We included English-language guidelines/position statements with recommendations relating to sedation for adults undergoing routine gastrointestinal endoscopy. Documents with guidance only for complex endoscopic procedures were excluded. We extracted and synthesized recommendations relating to: 1) choice of sedatives, 2) sedation administration, 3) personnel responsible for monitoring sedated patients, 4) skills and training of individuals involved in sedation, and 5) equipment required for monitoring sedated patients. We assessed the quality of included documents using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation (AGREE) II tool. RESULTS: We identified 19 guidelines and 7 position statements meeting inclusion criteria. Documents generally agreed that a single, trained registered nurse can administer moderate sedation, monitor the patient, and assist with brief, interruptible tasks. Documents also agreed on the routine use of pulse oximetry and blood pressure monitoring during endoscopy. However, recommendations relating to the drugs to be used for sedation, the healthcare personnel capable of administering propofol and monitoring patients sedated with propofol, and the need for capnography when monitoring sedated patients varied. Only 9 documents provided a grade or level of evidence in support of their recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: Recommendations for sedation practices in routine gastrointestinal endoscopy differ across guidelines/position statements and often lack supporting evidence with potential implications for patient safety and procedural efficiency.

Clinical and endoscopist factors associated with post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer in a population-based sample.

AIM: Factors associated with verified post-colonoscopy colorectal cancers (PCCRC) have not been well defined and survival for these patients is not well described. We aimed to assess the association of patient, tumour and endoscopist characteristics with PCCRC. METHODS: Using population-based data, we identified individuals diagnosed with CRC from 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2005 who underwent a colonoscopy within 3 years prior to diagnosis. Detected cancers were those diagnosed ≤6 months following colonoscopy; PCCRC were diagnosed >6 months to ≤3 years following colonoscopy. Post-colonoscopy and detected cancers were verified through chart review using a hospital-based simple random sampling frame. We used multivariable conditional logistic regression to determine the association of patient, tumour and endoscopist factors with PCCRC and compared overall survival using Cox proportional hazard models. RESULTS: Using the random sampling frame, we identified 498 patients with PCCRC and 498 with detected CRC; we obtained records and confirmed 367 patients with PCCRC and 412 with detected cancers. In multivariable analysis, patient age (OR 1.01; 95% CI 1.00-1.03) and tumour location (distal vs. proximal OR 0.36; 95% CI 0.25-0.53) were associated with PCCRC; endoscopist quality measures were not significantly associated with PCCRC. We did not find significant differences in overall survival between PCCRC and detected cancers (hazard ratio 1.12; 95% CI 0.92-1.32). CONCLUSION: Although endoscopic quality measures are important for CRC prevention, endoscopist factors were not associated with PCCRC. This study highlights the need for further research into the role of tumour biology in PCCRC development.

Proportion of Female Speakers at Academic Medical Conferences Across Multiple Specialties and Regions.

Importance: Women in medicine have been underrepresented at medical conferences; however, contributing factors have not been well studied. Objective: To examine the distribution of invited conference speakers by gender and factors associated with representation of women as speakers. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional analysis used medical conference programs from March 2017 to November 2018 across 20 specialties in 5 regions (Australasia, Canada, Europe, the UK, and the US) that were obtained online or from conference conveners. Exposures: Gender of invited lecturers, panelists, and planning committee members for each conference based on name or picture and publicly available data on compositions of specialties by gender for included regions. Main Outcomes and Measures: Outcomes included the proportion of female speakers (invited lecturers and panelists), the number of single-gender panels, and the proportion of female speakers compared with the specialties' gender composition. Correlations between the gender composition of conference planning committees and the proportion of female speakers were assessed. Multivariable regression models were used to evaluate factors independently associated with the proportion of female speakers at conferences. Results: A total of 8535 sessions (panels and invited lectures) with 23 440 speakers across 98 conferences were identified. Women accounted for 7064 (30.1%) of speakers; 1981 of 5409 panels (36.6%) consisted of men only, and 363 (6.7%) consisted of women only. The proportion of women speakers varied by region and specialty from 5.8% to 74.5%. In general, specialties with low baseline proportions of women (<20%) had a ratio of female speakers to female specialists greater than 1, whereas specialties with high baseline proportions of women (>40%) had a ratio of female speakers to female specialists less that 1. There was a strong positive correlation between the proportion of women on planning committees and conference representation of female speakers (r = 0.67; P < .001). The association remained statistically significant after controlling for other variables, including the regional gender balance of the specialty (odds ratio, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.04-1.15; P < .001 for every 10% increase in the proportion of women on the planning committee). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study, the proportion of female speakers at medical conferences was lower than that of male speakers, and more than one-third of panels were composed of men only. Increasing the number of women on planning committees may help address gender inequities.