Introduction

Gender diversity in scientific authorship is a progress indicator in various medical fields, including gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy. The representation of women in academia reflects broader changes in professional roles and leadership. This study aims at analyzing trends in gender representation among authors of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in GI endoscopy from the 1960s to the present, providing insights into the progression of gender equity in academic gastroenterology.

Aims & Methods

A PubMed search using the terms "digestive endoscopy" and "gastrointestinal endoscopy" was conducted on April 1st, 2024, yielding 5,944 studies filtered for RCTs. After excluding non-English articles, those unrelated to endoscopy, and studies without identifiable first authors, 4,357 RCTs were included. First and last authors' genders were identified using Genderize.io with ≥90% certainty. Descriptive and inferential statistics, including chi-squared tests, were used to analyze trends in gender representation over time.

Results

In total, there were 967 female first authors (21.7%), 3,415 male first authors (77.0%), and 57 unclassified first authors (1.3%). Out of 4173 last authors, 637 were female (15.3%), 3,203 were male (76.7%), and 333 were unclassified (8.0%) (p < 0.001). Female representation among last authors increased from 0% to approximately 20%, while first authors rose from 0% in the 1970s to about 30% by 2024 (p<0.05 for both trends). Multivariate regression confirmed that the increase in female first authorship was more significant compared to last authorship (p<0.001, R-square 0.90).Regarding specific topics, “non-IBD-related diagnostic lower GI endoscopy” showed the highest representation for female first authors at 25.5%, while “Obesity” and “Artificial Intelligence” had the lowest at 1.4% and 1.7%, respectively. For the last authorship, “non-IBD-related diagnostic lower GI endoscopy” led at 22.1%, followed by “Diagnostic upper GI endoscopy” at 14.0%. The lowest percentages among the last authors were “Obesity” at 1.4% and “Artificial Intelligence” at 0.6%. Statistical analysis revealed significant differences in gender representation across topics (p < 0.0001).Regional differences were noted, with female first authors more prevalent in Europe (36.2%) and Asia (31.0%), while female last authors were more common in Europe (34.2%) and North America (30.8%, p = 0.032), highlighting variations in gender dynamics within endoscopy research.

Conclusion

This study demonstrates a progressive increase in female representation in digestive endoscopy RCTs, particularly among first authors. However, gender disparities persist in senior roles, underscoring the need for continued efforts to support gender equity, especially in leadership positions within academic gastroenterology.

References

Liu CS et al. Am J Gastroenterol. 2024 Oct 1;119(10):2103-2106.
Genderize Data Roskilde, Denmark. Genderize.io (last access Nov 1st, 2024

Introduction

Aims & Methods

To establish a methodology for accurately estimating the required length of PICC lines.
Between November 2023 and April 2025, various body measurements were collected during PICC line placements. The depth of the selected vein was measured sonographically. Patients’ height, weight, and sex were documented. The PICC line length was determined based on clinical expertise. A post-insertion chest X-ray was performed to confirm the central position of the catheter tip. The distance from the catheter tip to the carina was measured to objectively define central placement. Multiple formulas in clinical use were compared for their accuracy. A regression analysis was conducted to develop a formula that is both accurate and simple to apply.

Results

​A total of 60 PICC lines were successfully inserted without complications. The median patient height was 168 cm (range: 164.3–175.8 cm), weight 59 kg (range: 50.0–83.8 kg), and age 56.5 years (range: 46–65.8). Thirty-five insertions were performed in female patients. The ideal PICC line length was 42 cm (range: 38–44.5 cm). Of the five tested formulas, the best correlations were found with Formula 5 (puncture site to jugulum + jugulum to 3rd intercostal space) with r = 0.68 (p = 0.0005), and Formula 3 (puncture site to acromion + clavicle length + jugulum to 4th intercostal space) with r = 0.67 (p = 0.0005). In simple linear regression, the distances from puncture site to acromion and to jugulum were significantly correlated (p = 0.0007 and p = 0.0019, respectively). The best-fit model in multiple regression included age, height, weight, arm side, puncture site to jugulum, and puncture site to 4th intercostal space (p = 0.0005).

Conclusion

An optimal formula for calculating the correct PICC line length has been identified.

References

Table 1: comparison between the various existing formulas and the newly developed one.