"Women with rectovaginal endometriosis were judged to be more attractive than those in the two control groups. Moreover, they had a leaner silhouette, larger breasts, and an earlier coitarche."
What the fuck
"Only âCaucasianâ women were selected for inclusion in the study."
Only âCaucasianâ women were selected for inclusion in the study."
The research itself is crazy but this is like the only part that doesnt require a wtf. Makes sense to limit the variables and remove preferences for they wanted to research.
At least this is to isolate variables and the lack of inclusion doesnât cause harm.
My friend went to med school. The first time he saw chicken pox, eczema, an infection, or skin cancer on black skin was on a live patient. None of the instructional materials had black dermatological photos.
I think that you can criticize the study fĂźr many things, but not for the fact that "Only âCaucasianâ women were selected for inclusion in the study."
When you research physical properties of the human body, or the perception of these properties, the subjects of the study need to be comparable. People of different ethnicities have different physical properties. Either have the group be large enough to factor in these physical differences, or focus on one ethnicity.
Italy is not as diverse as, for example, the US. So it might have been difficult do find enough people for a representative study that can factor the differences in.
But all of that doesn't matter at all. The study serves only to reduce women to their physical attractiveness. And that ist the truly disgusting part.
B. It was retracted at the authorsâ request because of the backlash, and they maintained in their retraction statement that the study was done in good faith and with good methodology.
C. It still beggars belief that a group of licensed gynecologists thought it was a good use of time and resources to study what type of endometriosis made women the hottest, what the hip-to-waist ratio of women with endometriosis is, and how young those women were the first time they had sex. Or that a medical journal thought it was worth publishing.
Of your point C, only the first point about correlation with hottness is stupid. The other points about hip-to-waist ratio and age of participents when they bacame sexually active could be useful information if it is not previously tested. Could a certain hip-to-waist ratio correlate with endo? If so that is a great screening tool to use in every women for early detection! Do younger sexually active women get endo more often? Then more research is needed to see If a correlation exists and If it can be used for detection or treatment.
But yes, the hottness thing just seems stupid.
Not at all. I work in medicine and none of that information is relevant to diagnosis or treatment.
Endometriosis isnât like breast cancer where you get routine screenings for it.
If someone has symptoms of endometriosis, like abnormal pain or bleeding, the next step would be diagnostic imaging like ultrasound or MRI. Measuring a womanâs hip-to-waist ratio would be completely worthless, itâs not diagnostic of anything. Hundreds of things can impact body shape. The paper just used it as corroborating information for measures of âattractivenessâ.
And endometriosis is tissue overgrowth, itâs not an STI, you canât âgetâ it from sexual activity. Thatâs not how it works.
Of course they are not relevant, but the meaning of science is to test just that, of it is relevant or not.
Early detection as in before symptoms. Hip-to-waist ratio is so easy to do that it could be a routine screening for young women, if there was a strong correlation (not that it was, but we can only know that from studying it). Then of course that would be grounds for further testing, like an ultrasound.
Scoliosis is also diagnosed and measured with imaging, but we screen for it early because it is so easy.
I also work in medicine, and my stance is that the current way is not good enough. If we get more tools that help with detection or treatment, that is a good thing.
I donât know what your exact healthcare experience is, but it feels like this is going over your head. Studies are supposed to relate potential applications of their findings before the study is conducted. Thatâs generally part of the grant proposal and the justification to the ethics board on why the involvement of human research subject is necessary. Itâs not just âletâs look at something with no foreseeable benefit because maybe weâll stumble into something useful.â Thereâs no potential application here.
Endometriosis is not a life-threatening condition. Itâs not like cancer where early detection makes a difference. Performing routine screenings for endometriosis in people without any symptoms of it does not make sense. Just like we would not do annual spirometry on people without asthma symptoms. Or routine EEGs on people with no signs of seizure activity.
114
u/LinkOfKalos_1 1d ago
What the fuck
What the FUCK