Guidelines for NGS procedures applied to prenatal diagnosis by the Spanish Society of Gynecology and Obstetrics and the Spanish Association of Prenatal Diagnosis.

OBJECTIVE: This document addresses the clinical application of next-generation sequencing (NGS) technologies for prenatal genetic diagnosis and aims to establish clinical practice recommendations in Spain to ensure uniformity in implementing these technologies into prenatal care. METHODS: A joint committee of expert obstetricians and geneticists was created to review the existing literature on fetal NGS for genetic diagnosis and to make recommendations for Spanish healthcare professionals. RESULTS: This guideline summarises technical aspects of NGS technologies, clinical indications in prenatal setting, considerations regarding findings to be reported, genetic counselling considerations as well as data storage and protection policies. CONCLUSIONS: This document provides updated recommendations for the use of NGS diagnostic tests in prenatal diagnosis. These recommendations should be periodically reviewed as our knowledge of the clinical utility of NGS technologies, applied during pregnancy, may advance.

Comparison of Outcomes in Bowel Resections by Gynecologic Oncologists Versus General Surgeons During Maximal Cytoreductive Surgery for Advanced Ovarian Cancer: Gynecologic Oncology Research Investigators Collaboration Study (GORILLA-3006).

BACKGROUND: This report describes the oncologic outcomes for patients with advanced ovarian cancer who had bowel surgery performed by gynecologic oncologists (GOs) and compares the outcomes with those for bowel surgery performed by general surgeons (GSs) during maximal cytoreductive surgery. METHODS: Patients from six academic institutions who had FIGO stage III or IV ovarian cancer and underwent any bowel surgeries during maximal cytoreductive surgery were eligible for the study. The patients were divided into two groups according to whether bowel surgery was performed by a GO or a GS. In both groups, the GOs were mainly involved in extra bowel debulking procedures. Perioperative and survival outcomes were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: The 761 patients in this study included 113 patients who underwent bowel surgery by a GO and 648 who had bowel surgery by a GS. No discernible differences were observed in age, American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) score, FIGO stage, histologic type, timing of cytoreductive surgery (primary or interval debulking surgery), or complications between the two groups. The GO group exhibited a shorter operation time than the GS group. Kaplan-Meier analysis showed no survival differences between the two groups. In the Cox analysis, non-serous cell types and gross residual diseases were associated with adverse effects on overall survival. However, performance of bowel surgery by a GO did not have an impact on survival. CONCLUSION: Performance of bowel surgery by a GO during maximal cytoreductive surgery is both feasible and safe. These results should be reflected in the training system for GOs regarding bowel surgery, and further research is needed to confirm that GOs can play a more leading role in performing extra-uterine procedures.

Diagnosis and management of infertility: NICE-adapted guidelines from the Italian Society of Human Reproduction.

In Italy the fertility rate is very low, and an increasing number of patients are infertile and require treatments. The Italian Law concerning the safety of patient care, and the professional liability of health professionals, indicates that health professionals must comply with the recommendations set out in the guidelines developed by public and private bodies and institutions, as well as scientific societies and technical-scientific associations of the health professions, except for specific cases. Unfortunately, no guideline for the diagnosis and the management of infertility is currently available in Italy. In 2019, the Italian Society of Human Reproduction pointed out the need to produce Italian guidelines and subsequently approved the establishment of a multidisciplinary and multiprofessional working group (MMWG) to develop such a guideline. The MMWG was representative of 5 scientific societies, one national federation of professional orders, 3 citizens' and patients' associations, 5 professions (including lawyer, biologist, doctor, midwife, and psychologist), and 3 medical specialties (including medical genetics, obstetrics and gynecology, and urology). The MMWG chose to adapt a high-quality guideline to the Italian context instead of developing one from scratch. Using the Italian version of the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II scoring system, the National Institute of Clinical Excellence guidelines were selected and adapted to the Italian context. The document was improved upon by incorporating comments and suggestions where needed. This study presents the process of adaptation and discusses the pros and cons of the often-neglected choice of adapting rather than developing new guidelines.

The impact of Black founding fathers on the specialty of gynecologic oncology.

INTRODUCTION: The formative period of the specialty of gynecologic oncology was from 1968 to 1972 and became a board-certified specialty in 1973. During this formation there were no Black physicians participating in this process. We chronicle and document the incorporation of the first three board-certified Black physicians in the specialty of gynecologic oncology here for historical purposes. METHODS: We highlight the hostile climate experienced by Black physicians before and during the formation of gynecologic oncology, review the acceptance and training of the first three Black physicians in the specialty and recognize their significant contributions to the field. RESULTS: The biographies and the narrative of these men describe their impact and contribution to medicine. We chronicle the historic presence of the first board-certified Black gynecologic oncologists and pelvic surgeons in the United States. CONCLUSION: These three men represent the Black Founding Fathers of gynecologic oncology. Their perseverance in the face of adversity and commitment to excellence have left an indelible impact on the institutions that they developed, the individuals that they trained, and the patients that they served.

Surgical training of gynecologic oncology fellows: Long-term trends and implications for future education.

OBJECTIVES: The surgical training of gynecologic oncology (GO) fellows is critical to providing excellent care to women with gynecologic cancers. We sought to evaluate changes in techniques and surgical volumes over an 18-year period among established GO fellowships across the US. METHODS: We emailed surveys to 30 GO programs that had trained fellows for at least 18 years. Surveys requested the number of surgical cases performed by a fellow for seventeen surgical procedures over each of five-time intervals. A One-Way Analysis of Variance was conducted for each procedure, averaged across institutions, to examine whether each procedure significantly changed over the 18-year span. RESULTS: 14 GO programs responded and were included in the analysis using SPSS. We observed a significant increase in the use of minimally invasive (MIS) procedures (robotic hysterectomy (p < .001), MIS pelvic (p = .001) and MIS paraaortic lymphadenectomy (p = .008). There was a concurrent significant decrease in corresponding "open" procedures. There was a significant decrease in all paraaortic lymphadenectomies. Complex procedures (such as bowel resection) remained stable. However, there was a wide variation in the number of cases reported with extremely small numbers for some critical procedures. CONCLUSIONS: The experience of GO fellows has shifted toward increased use of MIS. While these trends in care are appropriate, they do not diminish the need in many patients for complex open procedures. These findings should help spur the development of innovative training to maintain the ability to provide these core, specialty-defining procedures safely.

System-level recommendations for improved wellness for gynecologic oncologists: A Society of Gynecologic Oncology Review.

Burnout and its negative sequelae are a persistent problem in gynecologic oncology, threatening the health of our physician workforce. Individual-level interventions such as stress management training, physical activity, and sleep hygiene only partially address this widespread, systemic crisis rooted in the extended work hours and stressful situations associated with gynecologic oncology practice. There is an urgent need for systematic, institution-level changes to allow gynecologic oncologists to continue the crucial work of caring for people with gynecologic cancer. We present recommendations for institution-level changes which are grounded in the framework presented by the National Plan for Health Workforce Well-Being by the National Academy of Medicine. These are aimed at facilitating gynecologic oncologists' well-being and reduction of burnout. Recommendations include efforts to create a more positive and inclusive work environment, decrease administrative barriers, promote mental health, optimize electronic medical record use, and support a diverse workforce. Implementation and regular evaluation of these interventions, with specific attention to at-risk groups, is an important next step.

Yes, it's true: Benign hysterectomy trends for gynecologic oncologists in the United States from 2015 to 2021.

INTRODUCTION: The objective of this study was to determine the trends in benign surgery in GO practice across the United States. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort analysis of the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP) database from 2015 to 2021. Subjects were selected by filtering for cases of hysterectomy using current procedural terminology (CPT codes). Trends over time were assessed using linear regression for continuous outcomes and logistic regression for categorical outcomes. RESULTS: From the 2015 to 2021, the dataset contained 246,743 hysterectomies that were performed across the United States. For all gynecologic specialties, 188,534 (76%) were performed for benign indications and 59,209 (24%) were gynecologic cancer cases. The proportion of hysterectomies done by all specialists for benign indications increased with increasing year. When looking at hysterectomy cases by surgeon's subspecialty, GOs performed 35,680 (23%) of all benign cases over the entire time period. Over our study time period, the proportion of benign hysterectomies performed by GOs increased with increasing year with the proportion of benign hysterectomies done by GO in 2016 was 37.8% and reached 45.2% in 202. The proportion of hysterectomies done by all sub-specialists for cancer indications decreased with increasing year including the proportion of cancer cases performed by GOs for cancer indications. CONCLUSIONS: The proportion of benign hysterectomies performed by GO consistently increased every year. This study corroborates existing survey data and hypothesizes that the practice of GO is increasingly being consumed by general gynecology.

Delayed publication of clinical trials in gynecologic oncology.

OBJECTIVES: Delays in clinical trial publication can hinder timely implementation of evidence-based practices. We sought to determine publication rates and time to publication for clinical trials addressing gynecologic malignancies. METHODS: All clinical trials addressing gynecologic cancers in the ClinicalTrials.gov registry with a primary completion date between 1/1/2018 and 1/1/2020 were identified. The primary outcome was publication rate. All included studies had been completed for at least 3 years. Secondary outcomes were time to publication and associations between publication rate and sponsor, cancer type, and the number and location of primary study sites. RESULTS: Of the 290 trials included, 161 (55.5%) had a peer-reviewed publication for the primary outcome within at least 3 years after completion. Of these, 123 had positive results (76.4%) and 38 were negative (23.6%). The average duration from primary completion to manuscript publication was 23.6 months (SD 13.9; median 21.4, IQR 15.1-32.4). Only 73 had results posted on the ClinicalTrials.gov registry (25.2%). Studies with positive findings had a significantly faster time to publication than those with negative results (22.0 mo vs 29.0 mo, p = 0.009). There was no significant difference between publication rate and funding source, cancer type, or location and number of primary sites. CONCLUSIONS: Timely publication of clinical trials addressing gynecologic cancers remains an issue. Studies with positive findings were published faster than those with negative results, but the average publication time was still almost 2 years from trial completion. Further efforts should be made to identify and address barriers to clinical trial publication.

The effects of Asian American Pacific Islander (AAPI) data inequities in gynecologic oncology.

Asian American and Pacific Islanders (AAPI) are the fastest growing racial group in the United States. Data on AAPI communities, however, are significantly limited. The oversimplification and underreporting of this ethnically and socioeconomically heterogenous population through the use of aggregated data has deleterious effects and worsens disparities in patient treatment, outcomes, and experiences. Gynecologic oncology disparities do not exist in a vacuum, and are rooted in larger cultural gaps in our understanding and delivery of healthcare. In this paper, we aim to demonstrate how AAPI data inequities have negative downstream effects on research and public health policies and initiatives, and also provide a call to action with specific recommendations on how to improve AAPI data equity within these realms.

Shifting trends and sicker patients: Reassessing hysterectomy performed for benign indications by gynecologic oncologists.

OBJECTIVE: To assess trends and differences in patient characteristics, complications, and distributions of hysterectomy for benign indications by benign gynecologists (BG) and gynecologic oncologists (GO). METHODS: This retrospective cohort study identified patients undergoing hysterectomy for benign indications using the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program data from 2014 to 2021. Exclusions were made for gynecologic or disseminated cancers, ascites, non-gynecologic surgeons, and cesarean hysterectomies. Primary outcome was major (≥Grade 3) 30-day complications, categorized into any complications, wound, cardiovascular and pulmonary, renal, infectious, andthromboembolic complications. Thirty-day readmissions, reoperations, and mortality were also analyzed. Propensity score matching was performed in a 1:1 match of GO to BG patients and was compared. Linear regressions assessed trends. RESULTS: Among 198,767 patients, 18% (n = 37,707) underwent hysterectomy for benign indications with GO. GO patients exhibited more risk factors for complications and differed significantly from BG patients in comorbidities and perioperative characteristics. Overall, GO patients had higher major complication rates (3.1% vs 2.2%, p < 0.001) and for several other composite complications. After matching, compared to BG, GO-performed hysterectomies had similar rates of major complications (3.0% vs 3.0%, p = 0.55) and no differences in other composite complications, except fewer reoperations (1.2 % vs 1.5%, p < 0.01) and wound complications (0.4% vs 0.5%, p = 0.02) in GO patients. Over the eight years, the percentage of GO-performed hysterectomy (ß = 0.41, R2 = 0.71,p < 0.01) increased significantly whereas BG-performed surgeries decreased by the same magnitude. BG had a significant decrease in frail patients (ß = -0.47, R2 = 0.90, p < 0.01), but GO did not (ß = -0.36, R2 = 0.38, p = 0.10). CONCLUSIONS: GO are performing more hysterectomies for benign indications on higher-risk patients. However, on a matched cohort, risks of major complications were similar between GO and BG.

The role of surgeon specialty in management and survival of malignant ovarian germ cell tumors: A population-based study.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study is to describe management and survival in adult patients with malignant ovarian germ cell tumors (MOGCT) undergoing surgery by general gynecologists (GG) versus gynecologic oncologists (GO). METHODS: This is a population-based retrospective cohort study, including patients (age ≥ 18 years old) with MOGCT identified in the provincial cancer registry of Ontario, (1996-2020). Baseline characteristics, surgical and chemotherapy treatment were compared between those with surgery by GG or GO. Cox proportional hazards (CPH) model was used to determine if surgeon specialty was associated with overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Overall, 363 patients were included. One-hundred and sixty (44%) underwent surgery by GO and 203 (56%) by GG. There were higher rates of stage II-IV in the GO group (27.5% vs 3.9%, p < 0.001, and higher proportion of chemotherapy (64.4% vs 37.4%, p < 0.0001). Five-year OS was 90% and 93% in the GO vs GG groups, respectively (p = 0.39). CPH model showed factors associated with increased risk of death were older age at diagnosis (HR 1.09, 95% CI 1.07-1.12) and chemotherapy (HR 3.12, 95% CI 1.44-6.75). Surgeon specialty was not independently associated with all-cause death (HR 1.04, 95% 0.51-2.15, p = 0.91). CONCLUSIONS: In this group of MOGCT, 5-year OS was not significantly different between patients having surgery by GO compared to GG. Nevertheless, survival rates were lower than expected in the GG group despite their low-risk features. Further exploration is warranted regarding the reasons for this and whether patients with suspected MOGCT may benefit from early assessment by GO for optimal management.

Current practices and perspectives on clerkship grading in obstetrics and gynecology.

BACKGROUND: Clerkship grades in obstetrics and gynecology play an increasingly important role in the competitive application process to residency programs. An analysis of clerkship grading practices has not been queried in the past 2 decades in our specialty. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to investigate obstetrics and gynecology clerkship directors' practices and perspectives in grading. STUDY DESIGN: A 12-item electronic survey was developed and distributed to clerkship directors with active memberships in the Association of Professors of Gynecology and Obstetrics. RESULTS: A total of 174 of 236 clerkship directors responded to the survey (a response rate of 73.7%). Respondents reported various grading systems with the fewest (20/173 [11.6%]) using a 2-tiered or pass or fail system and the most (72/173 [41.6%]) using a 4-tiered system. Nearly one-third of clerkship directors (57/163 [35.0%]) used a National Board of Medical Examiners subject examination score threshold to achieve the highest grade. Approximately 45 of 151 clerkship directors (30.0%) had grading committees. Exactly half of the clerkship directors (87/174 [50.0%]) reported requiring unconscious bias training for faculty who assess students. In addition, some responded that students from groups underrepresented in medicine (50/173 [28.9%]) and introverted students (105/173 [60.7%]) received lower evaluations. Finally, 65 of 173 clerkship directors (37.6%) agreed that grades should be pass or fail. CONCLUSION: Considerable heterogeneity exists in obstetrics and gynecology clerkship directors' practices and perspectives in grading. Strategies to mitigate inequities and improve the reliability of grading include the elimination of a subject examination score threshold to achieve the highest grade and the implementation of both unconscious bias training and grading committees.

Revisiting the evolution of the Hippocratic Oath in obstetrics and gynecology.

Hippocrates, an influential figure in ancient Greek medicine, is best known for his lasting contribution, the Hippocratic Oath, which includes a significant message about obstetrics and gynecology. Given the Oath's status as a widely regarded ethical code for medical practice, it requires critical evaluation. The message of the Oath, as it related to obstetrics and gynecology, is expressed in ancient Greek by the phrase "οὐδὲ γυναικὶ πεσσὸν φθόριον δώσω" which translates directly to "I will not give to any woman a harming pessary." The words fetus and abortion were not present in the original Greek text of the Oath. Yet, this message of the Hippocratic Oath has been interpreted often as a prohibition against abortion. In this article, we present a critical linguistic and historical analysis and argue against the notion that the Hippocratic Oath was prohibiting abortion. We provide evidence that the words "foetum" (fetus) and "abortu" (abortion) were inserted in the Latin translations of the Oath, which then carried on in subsequent English versions. The addition of the words "fetus" and "abortion" in the Latin translations significantly altered the Oath's original meaning. Unfortunately, these alterations in the translation of the Hippocratic Oath have been accepted over the years because of cultural, religious, and social reasons. We assert that because the original Hippocratic Oath did not contain language related to abortion, it should not be construed as prohibiting it. The interpretation of the Oath should be based on precise and rigorous translation and speculative interpretations should be avoided.

The golden tickets: impact of preference signaling on obstetrics and gynecology residency applicants.

BACKGROUND: With the residency selection process becoming more competitive and programs receiving unprecedented numbers of applications, some specialties have introduced preference signaling in an attempt to help applicants target programs of interest. In the 2022-2023 application cycle, obstetrics and gynecology also introduced a 2-tiered system with a limited number of gold signals (n=3) and silver signals (n=15). OBJECTIVE: Given the novelty of preference signaling in the obstetrics and gynecology residency application process, this study aimed to (1) assess the effect of signals on interview offers and match and (2) discuss applicant attitudes toward this preference signaling system. STUDY DESIGN: This was a voluntary cross-sectional survey study conducted in April 2023 that was open to all fourth-year medical students who applied to an obstetrics and gynecology residency in the United States. Self-reported demographics, signaling, interview, and match data were collected. In addition, students were asked about attitudes toward signaling on a 5-point Likert scale. RESULTS: Of the 1507 applicants who entered an obstetrics and gynecology residency via match or Supplemental Offer and Acceptance Program process, 969 (64.3%) completed the survey. Moreover, an additional 22 applicants who did not match responded to the survey. More respondents used all 3 gold tokens (98.3%) and all 15 silver tokens (94.3%). The mean number of applications sent was 74.3±35.1, and the mean number of interviews received per applicant was 12.8±6.6. The interviews or token yields were 64.0%±31.5% for gold tokens, 43.8%±23.1% for silver tokens, and 9.8%±10.0% for no token. Of the survey respondents, 340/951 (35.8%) matched to a gold token program, 338/951 (35.5%) matched to a silver token program, and 244/951 (25.7%) matched to a nontoken program. Furthermore, 499/951 applicants (52.5%) reported feeling slightly positive or very positive about signaling. CONCLUSION: Most obstetrics and gynecology applicants in this survey participated in preference signaling. Gold and silver tokens were associated with high ratios of interview invitations compared with no token. However, the overall number of applications did not decrease in the 2022-2023 cycle, and only half of survey respondents reported feeling positive about the signaling process. These results can inform program directors and students about application number and strategy in upcoming cycles.

A statement on abortion by 900 professors of obstetrics and gynecology after the reversal of Roe vWade.

In the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology in 1972 and 2013, 100 leaders in obstetrics and gynecology wrote calls to action-in 1972 in anticipation of the Roe v Wade decision and in 2013 in concern over the increasing restrictions to abortion care. In this article, 900 professors support a call to action for reinstating federal protections for abortion. Over a year ago, the Supreme Court handed down the Dobbs decision, overturning nearly 50 years of precedent in retracting the constitutionally protected right to abortion. The medical community is already seeing the harms of this decision on the lives and health of our patients and on the ability to train upcoming physicians in this medically necessary evidence-based care. Further harms are anticipated, including negative effects on maternal mortality. The 900 professors of obstetrics and gynecology whose signatures appear at the conclusion of this article stand together in support of reproductive freedom, including the right to affordable, accessible, safe, and legal abortion care.

Randomized controlled trials: not always the "gold standard" for evidence in obstetrics and gynecology.

Randomized controlled trials are considered the "gold standard" for therapeutic interventions, and it is not uncommon for sweeping changes in medical practice to follow positive results from such trials. However, randomized controlled trials are not without their limitations. Physicians frequently view randomized controlled trials as infallible, whereas they tend to dismiss evidence derived from sources other than randomized controlled trials as less credible or reliable. In several situations in obstetrics and gynecology, there are no randomized controlled trials to help guide the clinician. In these circumstances, it is important to evaluate the entire body of evidence including observational studies, rather than dismiss interventions altogether simply because no randomized controlled trials exist. Randomized controlled trials and observational studies should be viewed as complementary rather than at odds with each other. Some reversals in widely adopted clinical practice have recently been implemented following subsequent studies that contradicted the outcomes of major randomized controlled trials. The most notable of these was the withdrawal from the market of 17-hydroxyprogesterone caproate for preterm birth prevention. Such reversals could potentially have been averted if the inherent limitations of randomized controlled trials were carefully considered before implementing these universal practice changes. This Clinical Opinion underscores the limitations of an exclusive reliance on randomized controlled trials while disregarding other evidence in determining how best to care for patients. Solutions are proposed that advocate that clinicians adopt a more balanced perspective that considers the entirety of the available medical evidence and the individual patient characteristics, needs, and wishes.

Human vs machine: identifying ChatGPT-generated abstracts in Gynecology and Urogynecology.

BACKGROUND: ChatGPT, a publicly available artificial intelligence large language model, has allowed for sophisticated artificial intelligence technology on demand. Indeed, use of ChatGPT has already begun to make its way into medical research. However, the medical community has yet to understand the capabilities and ethical considerations of artificial intelligence within this context, and unknowns exist regarding ChatGPT's writing abilities, accuracy, and implications for authorship. OBJECTIVE: We hypothesize that human reviewers and artificial intelligence detection software differ in their ability to correctly identify original published abstracts and artificial intelligence-written abstracts in the subjects of Gynecology and Urogynecology. We also suspect that concrete differences in writing errors, readability, and perceived writing quality exist between original and artificial intelligence-generated text. STUDY DESIGN: Twenty-five articles published in high-impact medical journals and a collection of Gynecology and Urogynecology journals were selected. ChatGPT was prompted to write 25 corresponding artificial intelligence-generated abstracts, providing the abstract title, journal-dictated abstract requirements, and select original results. The original and artificial intelligence-generated abstracts were reviewed by blinded Gynecology and Urogynecology faculty and fellows to identify the writing as original or artificial intelligence-generated. All abstracts were analyzed by publicly available artificial intelligence detection software GPTZero, Originality, and Copyleaks, and were assessed for writing errors and quality by artificial intelligence writing assistant Grammarly. RESULTS: A total of 157 reviews of 25 original and 25 artificial intelligence-generated abstracts were conducted by 26 faculty and 4 fellows; 57% of original abstracts and 42.3% of artificial intelligence-generated abstracts were correctly identified, yielding an average accuracy of 49.7% across all abstracts. All 3 artificial intelligence detectors rated the original abstracts as less likely to be artificial intelligence-written than the ChatGPT-generated abstracts (GPTZero, 5.8% vs 73.3%; P<.001; Originality, 10.9% vs 98.1%; P<.001; Copyleaks, 18.6% vs 58.2%; P<.001). The performance of the 3 artificial intelligence detection software differed when analyzing all abstracts (P=.03), original abstracts (P<.001), and artificial intelligence-generated abstracts (P<.001). Grammarly text analysis identified more writing issues and correctness errors in original than in artificial intelligence abstracts, including lower Grammarly score reflective of poorer writing quality (82.3 vs 88.1; P=.006), more total writing issues (19.2 vs 12.8; P<.001), critical issues (5.4 vs 1.3; P<.001), confusing words (0.8 vs 0.1; P=.006), misspelled words (1.7 vs 0.6; P=.02), incorrect determiner use (1.2 vs 0.2; P=.002), and comma misuse (0.3 vs 0.0; P=.005). CONCLUSION: Human reviewers are unable to detect the subtle differences between human and ChatGPT-generated scientific writing because of artificial intelligence's ability to generate tremendously realistic text. Artificial intelligence detection software improves the identification of artificial intelligence-generated writing, but still lacks complete accuracy and requires programmatic improvements to achieve optimal detection. Given that reviewers and editors may be unable to reliably detect artificial intelligence-generated texts, clear guidelines for reporting artificial intelligence use by authors and implementing artificial intelligence detection software in the review process will need to be established as artificial intelligence chatbots gain more widespread use.

Educational guidelines on sexual orientation, gender identity and expression, and sex characteristics biases in medical education.

A commitment to diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging in medical education requires addressing both explicit and implicit biases based on sexual orientation, gender identity and expression, and sex characteristics and the intersectionality with other identities. Heterosexism and heteronormative attitudes contribute to health and healthcare disparities for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer or questioning, intersex, asexual individuals. Student, trainee, and faculty competencies in medical education curricula regarding the care of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer or questioning, intersex, asexual patients and those who are gender nonconforming or born with differences of sex development allow for better understanding and belonging within the clinical learning environment of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer/questioning, intersex, asexual learners and educators. The Association of Professors of Gynecology and Obstetrics issued a call to action to achieve a future free from racism and bias through inclusivity in obstetrics and gynecology education and healthcare, which led to the creation of the Association of Professors of Gynecology and Obstetrics Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Guidelines Task Force. The task force initially addressed racism, racial- and ethnicity-based bias, and discrimination in medical education and additionally identified other groups that are subject to bias and discrimination, including sexual orientation, gender identity and expression, and sex characteristic identities, persons with disabilities, and individuals with various religious and spiritual practices. In this scholarly perspective, the authors expand on previously developed guidelines to address sexual orientation, gender identity and expression, and sex characteristics bias, heterosexism, and heteronormative attitudes in obstetrics and gynecology educational products, materials, and clinical learning environments to improve access and equitable care to vulnerable individuals of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer or questioning, intersex, asexual community.

Modeling the Adoption of 5760 Clinical Studies Into Practice Across 5 Surgical Specialties.

INTRODUCTION: No studies exist that explore the factors that influence the process of synthesizing new knowledge into perioperative standards of care and the operating room. We sought to model the adoption of clinical research into surgical practice and identify modifiable factors influencing the latency of this translation. METHODS: We created a data set comprised of all UpToDate articles between 2011 and 2020, sampled at 3-mo intervals, to explore how research is incorporated at the point-of-care (POC)-studying 5760 new references from 204 journals across five surgical specialties, compared to all uncited articles published during the same interval. UpToDate authors serve as specialty curators of the vast surgical literature, with an audience of more than a million clinicians in over 180 countries across 3200 institutions. Unlike society guidelines, UpToDate also provides the necessary granularity to quantify the time in bringing research to the bedside. Our main outcomes are citation rates and time-to-citation, split by specialty, journal, article type, and topics. We also model the influence of impact factor, geography, and funding and, finally, propose new impact indices to help with prioritizing surgical literature. RESULTS: We highlight variation in adoption of clinical research by specialty. We show, despite representing a lower quality of evidence, surgical case reports are one of the most cited article types. Furthermore, most clinical trials (94%-100%) in surgical journals are never incorporated into POC reference lists. While few, pragmatic trials were the most likely to be cited of any article type in any surgical specialty (40%). Journal impact factor did not correlate with time-to-citation or proportion of articles cited in three of five surgical specialties, suggesting differences in how specialties synthesize/value research from specialty journals. Our two metrics, the Clinical Relevancy and Immediacy Indices, were defined to capture this impact/relevance to surgical practice. Of the five surgical subspecialties, gynecology references were >5-fold more likely to get cited, had a larger fraction of higher quality evidence incorporated, and demonstrated more success with POC adoption of practice guidelines. We also quantified the cost of translating research to surgical practice per specialty and generated maps that highlight institutions successful in translating research to the POC. The higher expenditure of National Institutes of Health funding in gynecology may reflect the cost of higher quality research per citation. CONCLUSIONS: Understanding translational latency is the first step to exposing blocks that slow the adoption of research into everyday surgical practice and to understanding why increasing research funding has not yielded comparative gains in surgical outcomes. Our approach reveals new methods to monitoring the efficiency of research investments and evaluating the efficacy of policies influencing the translation of research to surgical practice.