Female physicians earn less than male physicians; in the United States, the disparity in adjusted annual salary is estimated at 20%.^1,2 One contributor to the sex-based income disparity is that fewer women enter highly remunerative specialties,^3,4 such as surgery. In the United States, women account for 34% of physicians but only 12% of surgeons.⁵ Similarly, in Canada, women make up 42% of all physicians but only 19% of surgeons.⁶ Other explanations include differences in practice type,² hours worked,² parental status,⁷ years in practice,⁸ career advancement,^8-10 and leadership roles attained.^7,11 If personal lifestyle or practice choices were the only causes of earning disparities, male and female physicians performing similar work and working similar hours would have equal earnings. However, studies of US physicians estimate 37% to 39% of the salary disparity in medicine is unexplained by personal or practice factors.^1,7

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

Recent studies demonstrating shorter survival among cervical cancer patients undergoing minimally invasive versus open radical hysterectomy could not account for surgeon volume and require confirmation in other jurisdictions with larger sample sizes, longer follow-up, and data on disease recurrence. To determine if surgical approach is associated with oncologic outcomes in cervical cancer patients undergoing minimally invasive or open radical hysterectomy, while accounting for mechanistic factors including surgeon volume. We performed a population-based retrospective cohort study of cervical cancer patients undergoing primary radical hysterectomy by a gynecologic oncologist from 2006 to 2017 in Ontario, Canada. A multivariable marginal Cox proportional hazards model and cause-specific hazards model were used to evaluate the association of surgical approach with all-cause death and recurrence respectively, clustering at the surgeon level. We tested for interactions between surgical approach and either pathologic stage or surgeon volume. We identified 958 patients (minimally invasive 475; open 483) with mean age 45.9 and a median follow-up of 6 years. Of minimally invasive procedures, 89.6% were performed laparoscopically and 10.4% robotically. The unadjusted 5-year cumulative incidences of all-cause death (minimally invasive 12.5%; open 5.4%), cervical cancer death (minimally invasive 9.3%; open 3.3%), and recurrence (minimally invasive 16.2%; open 8.4%) were significantly increased for minimally invasive radical hysterectomy in patients with stage IB disease, but not the cohort overall. After adjusting for patient factors and surgeon volume, minimally invasive radical hysterectomy was associated with increased rates of death (hazard ratio [HR], 2.20; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.15-4.19) and recurrence (HR, 1.97; 95% CI, 1.10-3.50) compared to open radical hysterectomy in patients with stage IB disease (n = 534), but not IA disease (n = 244; HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.13-4.01; HR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.10-1.10). Minimally invasive radical hysterectomy is associated with increased rates of death and recurrence in patients with stage IB cervical cancer even after controlling for surgeon volume; open radical hysterectomy should be the recommended approach in this population. Although there may be a subset of patients with microscopic early-stage disease for whom minimally invasive radical hysterectomy remains safe, additional studies are required.

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.