The Keloland news website is reporting that a bill banning abortion is expected to be introduced in the South Dakota legislature next week, following a voter defeat of the total abortion ban in November. The new bill is expected to inculde exceptions for rape, incest, and the woman's health, but is said to be still in final drafting stages.

Technorati Tags: abortion; South Dakota

MeSH Tags: Abortion, Induced; Abortion, Legal; Reproductive Rights; South Dakota;

This study appears in the January 2007 issue of the journal Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics: "Flaturia: passage of flatus at coitus. Incidence and pathogenesis." In case you need help interpreting the title, that would be the passing of gas during sex. 9 women who normally had "fecal and flatus control" but who "leaked flatus only during coitus" were studied in comparison to 9 women who do not experience this problem, through studies of rectal and anal pressure "at rest and at on voluntary squeeze." The testing utilized a balloon probe with was inserted 6cm into the anal canal and withdrawn 1cm at a time, with pressure readings recorded. Electrodes, X-rays, and barium enemas were also used. The investigators found that pressure levels in the patients matched those of the healthy volunteers. The authors' conclusions? They're not sure what the exact mechanism is, but think the gas passing is related to penile thrusting and more relaxed rectums.

This research really isn't that notable, but I wonder how they found and convinced women to participate in the study?

Technorati Tags: flatulence; sex

MeSH Tags: Flatulence; Coitus

Read the rest of this entry »

In looking up the MeSH terms (the official medical terminology coming out of the National Library of Medicine) for the previous post, I made an interesting find. MeSH is set up as a hierarchy - big, broad term, then more specific term, then even more specific term, and so on. The broad concept of sex among humans is "Sexual Behavior." The more specific term, "Coitus," is defined as "the sexual union of a male and a female." There is no equivalent term provided for sex between men or sex between women. Under Sexual Behavior, you also find the term "Sexuality," defined as "The sexual functions, activities, attitudes, and orientations of an individual." Beneath that term, the even more specific terms are "Bisexuality," "Heterosexuality," and "Homosexuality." Still, shouldn't "Coitus" have an equivalent term (and resulting way of finding) for non-heterosexual sex?

Lest you think "Coitus" is only reserved for some mechanical, heteroexual-specific technical discussion of sex, a search for the term returns results such as:

-Promoting protection and pleasure: amplifying the effectiveness of barriers against sexually transmitted infections and pregnancy.

-Sexual behaviour in context: a global perspective.

-Environmental, social, and personal correlates of having ever had sexual intercourse among American Indian youths.

-Substance use and sexual risk behavior among South African eighth grade students.

-Now dear, I have a headache! Immediate improvement of cluster headaches after sexual activity.

-The role of parent religiosity in teens' transitions to sex and contraception.

I would expect that each of those topics would have its own gay/lesbian aspects. Why would they not all fall under "Sexual Behavior," or under "Heterosexuality" if all research subjects were heterosexual? Why was the term for the sexual union of a male and a female the appropriate one for these titles? I would prefer that more specific terms be added all around - in addition to the lack of a term for non-heterosexual sex, there is also no term for oral sex, anal sex (these two get picked up by "Sexual Behavior"), sex toys, or specific female-used contraceptives such as vaginal rings, vaginal sponges, cervical caps, or diaphragms (all fall under "Contraceptive Devices, Female"). The male and female condom do get their own entries, as does the IUD.

Read the rest of this entry »

Regarding mandatory (with parent opt-out) HPV vaccination for Kansas girls, Dawn Richardson, from a nutty anti-vaccine group (in Texas), says, "."

Nevermind that according to the CDC, "Approximately 20 million people are currently infected with HPV. At least 50 percent of sexually active men and women acquire genital HPV infection at some point in their lives. By age 50, at least 80 percent of women will have acquired genital HPV infection. About 6.2 million Americans get a new genital HPV infection each year." I suppose 80% of women just come from bad homes and are irresponsible.

Folks, remember not to let extreme bias that would endanger girls and women for the sake of appearing to be from "a good home" be the only source you go to for vaccination information. While it's true that long-term safety data is not yet available for this very new vaccine, you should be aware that many opponents of the vaccine are so because of reasons that have nothing to do with actual scientific data. Read the rest of this entry »

Today's issue of Morbidity & Mortality Weekly Report includes the piece, "Use of Mammograms Among Women Aged >40 Years --- United States, 2000--2005," which describes findings from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) telephone survey indicating that the rate of getting mammograms reported by U.S. women has declined. Based on the surveys, the percentage of women age 40 or older reporting having had a mammogram in the past two years decreased from 76.4% in 2000 to 74.6% in 2005; the National Cancer Institute recommends that all women in this age group have a mammogram every 1-2 years. While this seems like a small percentage change, it was considered statistically significant. According to a Washington Post article on the findings, "The decline of less than 2 percentage points may seem small, but it could be terribly significant, Lichtenfeld [of the American Cancer Society] said. But if you consider that about 80 million U.S. women should be getting a mammogram every year, it means more than 1 million fewer women are getting the screening test, he said."

The Healthy People 2010 (a set of national health objectives) recommendation of having 70% of these women reporting mammogram was still met, despite the decline. The MMWR piece describes several limitations of the study, such as small sample size, representing only certain states, lack of confirmation with medical records, and overestimation of breast cancer screening by including mammograms that were done for reasons other than routine screening.

Medical technology blog medGadget reviews two women's health-related products today. The first, the Z-Tech breast scanning device, is still in testing but is intended to be "a painless, radiation-free, and less costly alternative to mammography for women at high risk for the disease." MIT Technology Review also has a piece on the device, which raises questions about whether it would lead to a high rate of false positives (finding a problem when it's not really there). medGadget previously covered these concerns in an April 2005 post.

Note: the photo accompanying the medGadget post is not safe for work, unless you work in radiology.

The second XX device is the FemSuite FemEye One, described as "the Cadillac of intravaginal scopes." The portion of this scope/videocamera device that is inserted in the vagina is apparently only 8mm wide, or about 1/3 of an inch. It's handheld, and portable, and costs about $300.

Last summer we posted about the Healthcare Research and Development Institute (HRDI). HRDI is a for-profit owned by a number of the top executives of some of the US best known hospital systems and academic medical centers. According to an article in the NY Times, HRDI gives a limited number of drug, device, and biotechnology companies access to these executives, for a stiff fee.

According to yesterday's NY Times, the Connecticut Attorney General, Richard Blumenthal, just obtained a settlement from HRDI that calls for the company to pay a $150,000 fine, and disband as a for-profit company. A digest of the story, edited and re-ordered, is below:

Read the rest of this entry »

I thought a blog post was warranted to commemorate my . The Journal of the Medical Library Association has recently added a case study feature, which presents a clinical question posed to the librarian by physicians and walks the reader through the process of developing an answer. The cases take an instructional tone, with "you" throughout, rather than a drier academic tone, as they are intended to instruct and encourage other librarians in assisting clinicians with their questions. This issue's case, Utilizing case reports to build awareness of rare complications in critical care, is freely available online, and presents an investigation as to whether a patient with an ileostomy could have a C. difficile infection affecting the small intestine. My co-authors are another medical librarian and a trauma doctor, both of whom are outstanding at what they do. I want to specifically thank co-author Jerome for the amazing amount of work she contributed to the case.

The case study feature is curated by fellow blogger BeckyJ, and has its own accompanying blog, JMLA Case Studies in Health Sciences Librarianship. Links to background reading and further discussion of the case will be added to the blog in the coming days.

Walden RR, Jerome RN, Miller RS. Utilizing case reports to build awareness of rare complications in critical care. J Med Libr Assoc. 2007 Jan;95(1):3-8. [Full Text]

Read the rest of this entry »

The Washington Post is reporting outcomes of the FDA's consideration of newer low-dose birth control pills, although the details are not yet up on the FDA website. According to the article, "Food and Drug Administration advisers refused this week to recommend a set standard on how often next-generation pills would have to fail for them to be denied federal approval...Instead, the panel of outside experts recommended the agency keep an open mind to approving less-effective pills that could offer other important benefits, such as reduced risk of blood clots and stroke."

This FDA briefing document provides background information on the meeting and concerns about lower-dose oral contraceptives.

RH Reality Check has a great post today, Top 10 Reasons Why You Should Be Terrified that Dr. Eric Keroack is in Charge of the U.S. Federal Family Planning Program. Among them - the doctor who did the oxytocin studies Keroack uses to support his claim that premarital/too much sex causes women not be able to bond properly with their husbands calls Keroack's interpretation of her work "pseudoscience."

The RH Reality Check also includes Keroack's complete presentation on the oxytocin topic. I'm sorry, but that thing looks like spam I get in my email, and is not the quality of work I expect to see from a supposed professional who stands to be in charge of family planning for the whole nation. Of course Keroack's anti-contraception stance, work with "crisis pregnancy centers," and abstinence-only agenda are the major concerns, but c'mon - The Drudge Report looks more professional than this.

Read the rest of this entry »