Search

Background: The gender gap in the authorship of scientific research may affect career advancement. Our aim was to assess the potential gender gap in gastrointestinal (GI) journals., Methods: A systematic review was performed of the GI literature and ongoing research in the period 2020-2022. A total 10 GI journals and ongoing research on clinicaltrials.gov were selected for review. The gender gap in first and senior authorship was evaluated for each article and ongoing research project. Associations between the gender gap and possible predictors were measured and results are presented as odds ratios (ORs) with 95%CI., Results: The number of first female authors (FFAs) and senior female authors (SFAs) in published articles were 1408/4207 (33.5%) and 911/4207 (21.7%), respectively. There were 781/2654 (29.4%) female principal investigators (PI)s for the ongoing research. On comparison of non-endoscopic vs. endoscopic topics, the latter were associated with the gender gap (hepatology, OR 2.15 [95%CI 1.83-2.55]; inflammatory bowel disease, OR 2.12 [95%CI 1.60-2.45]; upper and lower GI, OR 1.31 [95%CI 1.18-1.73]); as well as the type of article (original article vs. editorial, OR 1.92 [95%CI 1.58-2.33]). The type of research was also associated with the gender gap (clinical vs. preclinical studies, OR 0.88 [95%CI 0.66-0.91])., Conclusion: Our results demonstrated a correlation between the gender gap and the design and topic of the research. Future strategies for improving equity in career development in GI endoscopy should focus on closing the gender gap in equity of authorship., Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest., (Thieme. All rights reserved.)

Background & Aims: Although several classification systems have been proposed for characterization of Barrett's esophagus (BE) surface patterns based on narrow-band imaging (NBI), none have been widely accepted. The Barrett's International NBI Group (BING) aimed to develop and validate an NBI classification system for identification of dysplasia and cancer in patients with BE., Methods: The BING working group, composed of NBI experts from the United States, Europe, and Japan, met to develop a validated, consensus-driven NBI classification system for identifying dysplasia and cancer in BE. The group reviewed 60 NBI images of nondysplastic BE, high-grade dysplasia, and esophageal adenocarcinoma to characterize mucosal and vascular patterns visible by NBI; these features were used to develop the BING criteria. We then recruited adult patients undergoing surveillance or endoscopic treatment for BE at 4 institutions in the United States and Europe, obtaining high-quality NBI images and performing histologic analysis of biopsies. Experts individually reviewed 50 NBI images to validate the BING criteria, and then evaluated 120 additional NBI images (not previously viewed) to determine whether the criteria accurately predicted the histology results., Results: The BING criteria identified patients with dysplasia with 85% overall accuracy, 80% sensitivity, 88% specificity, 81% positive predictive value, and 88% negative predictive value. When dysplasia was identified with a high level of confidence, these values were 92%, 91%, 93%, 89%, and 95%, respectively. The overall strength of inter-observer agreement was substantial (κ = 0.681)., Conclusions: The BING working group developed a simple, internally validated system to identify dysplasia and EAC in patients with BE based on NBI results. When images are assessed with a high degree of confidence, the system can classify BE with >90% accuracy and a high level of inter-observer agreement., (Copyright © 2016 AGA Institute. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)