Jenna Emerson

Gender Differences in Scholarly Productivity Within Academic Gynecologic Oncology Departments

OBJECTIVE: To estimate whether there is a gender difference in scholarly productivity among academic gynecologic oncologists. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, the academic rank and gender of gynecologic oncology faculty in the United States were determined from online residency and fellowship directories and departmental web sites. Each individuals h-index and years of publication were determined from Scopus (a citation database of peer-reviewed literature). The h-index is a quantification of an authors scholarly productivity that combines the number of publications with the number of times the publications have been cited. We generated descriptive statistics and compared rank, gender, and productivity scores. RESULTS: Five hundred seven academic faculty within 137 U.S. teaching programs were identified. Of these, 215 (42%) were female and 292 (58%) were male. Men had significantly higher median h-indices than women, 16 compared with 8, respectively (P<.001). Women were more likely to be of junior academic rank with 63% of assistant professors being female compared with 20% of full professors. When stratifying h-indices by gender and academic rank, men had significantly higher h-indices at the assistant professor level (7 compared with 5, P<.001); however, this difference disappeared at the higher ranks. Stratifying by the years of active publication, there was no significant difference between genders. CONCLUSION: Female gynecologic oncologists at the assistant professor level had lower scholarly productivity than men; however, at higher academic ranks, they equaled their male counterparts. Women were more junior in rank, had published for fewer years, and were underrepresented in leadership positions. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III

Third-Trimester Prenatal Syphilis Screening: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the cost to prevent one case of congenital syphilis or fetal or neonatal death with universal third-trimester syphilis rescreening in the United States and to estimate the incidence of syphilis seroconversion at which rescreening becomes cost-effective. METHODS: We created a decision model comparing universal third-trimester syphilis rescreening in women who screened negative in the first trimester with no rescreening. The assumed base case incidence of seroconversion was 0.012%. The primary outcome was the cost to prevent one case of congenital syphilis. Secondary outcomes included the cost to prevent one fetal or neonatal death and the number needed to rescreen to prevent one adverse outcome. A strategy was considered cost-effective if it cost less than

Opioid Knowledge and Prescribing Practices Among Obstetrician-Gynecologists

285,000 to prevent one case of congenital syphilis (the estimated long-term care cost). RESULTS: Under our assumptions, universal third-trimester rescreening would cost an additional

Isolated Inguinal Node Recurrences of Ovarian Cancer: A Case Series Study

419,842 for each case of congenital syphilis prevented and

Opioid Knowledge and Prescribing Practices Among Obstetrician–Gynecologists

3,621,144 and

Evaluation of sentinel lymph nodes in vulvar, endometrial and cervical cancers

6,052,534, respectively, for each fetal and neonatal death prevented. Rescreening 4,000,000 women would prevent 60 cases of congenital syphilis and seven fetal and four neonatal deaths. Prevention of one case of congenital syphilis would require 65,790 women be rescreened. Seroconversion incidence of 0.017% would make third-trimester rescreening cost-effective. CONCLUSION: Universal third-trimester syphilis rescreening requires a large number of women be rescreened at a high health care cost to prevent one adverse outcome from maternal syphilis. Seroconversion incidence must be 19-fold higher than the national average of primary and secondary syphilis in women for universal third-trimester rescreening to be cost-effective.