Explore the vast range of titles available.

Under-representation of female researchers tends to create under-representation of issues that are relevant to women in research — in our current situation this may create important gaps in our understanding of COVID-19. [...]we investigated whether gender differences existed in authorship of COVID-19 research since the onset of the pandemic. [...]although we employed a widely used and validated software, it is still possible that it may have misclassified the gender of some authors. [...]COVID-19 is a high-profile and dynamic topic where women may either be overtly or covertly denied access to COVID-19 research, because of its anticipated high impact.6 Third, women may have less time to commit to research during the pandemic.7 Fourth, COVID-19-related papers are likely to be affected as much as other papers by gender bias in the peer-review process.8 Fifth, a relatively large amount of the early COVID-19 publications are commissioned articles, which are, in general, more likely to be published by men.9 There is a pressing need to reduce these gender inequalities because women’s participation in research is associated with a higher likelihood of reporting gender and sex-disaggregated data,4 which in turn improve our understanding of the clinical and epidemiological dimensions of COVID-19. A further step would be to consider gender quotas, as these have shown to help rectify women’s under-representation in prominent positions, for instance, in political, economic and academic systems.12 Conclusion Women have been under-represented in COVID-19 research since the beginning of the outbreak.

Medical students now have to have formal resilience training. Can you detect resilience, let alone teach it, and does it really improve patient care?

Positive feedback motivates trainees, reinforces what’s going well, and encourages repetition. But has the volume become overwhelming?

Current covid-19 mortality and morbidity data show that women are faring better than men in terms of severity of disease course, likelihood of hospitalisation, and risk of death.1 This difference can be seen across nations and socioeconomic groups, while case numbers are similar for men and women.234 The biological mechanisms and social factors contributing to these differences remain unclear, however. Collecting sex disaggregated data has both immediate and long term benefits.5 With clinical practice around covid-19 continually being reviewed and updated, data from the disease’s onset in late 2019 have rapidly improved the quality of care. Women’s comparably favourable immune response might offer essential insights into treatment and vaccine development. [...]steroids and other immunomodulators are being trialled to manage secondary fibrotic damage, and these drugs have different side effects in women and men.6 These are some of many important considerations for clinical guidelines on management of covid-19, which suggest that attempts to standardise care should vary according to sex.

Background/Objectives: Uterine carcinosarcoma (UCS) refers to a rare high-grade aggressive epithelial non-endometrioid endometrial carcinoma, with tumour cells demonstrating epithelial–mesenchymal metaplastic transition and composed of both carcinomatous epithelial and sarcomatous (homologous or heterologous) components. Methods: The aim of this study was to evaluate the epidemiology, management approach, outcomes and survival patterns of patients with UCS. Seventy-seven cases of UCS treated with primary surgery in a single tertiary centre underwent retrospective cohort analysis across a ten-year period. Observational data on clinicopathological variables and treatment pathways were reviewed and independent risk factors for relapse and mortality were analysed. Results: The 5-year disease-free and overall survival rates were 52.10% and 46.6%, respectively. Cervical stromal involvement was independently related to disease-free survival (HR = 6.26; 95%CI 1.82–21.59; p = 0.004) and overall survival (HR = 3.64; 95%CI 1.42–9.38; p = 0.007), whilst sarcomatous component type was independently related to recurrence only (HR = 3.62; 95%CI 1.38–9.51; p = 0.009) after adjusting for other pathological and treatment variables. No significant difference in recurrence or mortality was found when comparing the performance of pelvic lymph node dissection (p = 0.803 and p = 0.192 respectively) or the administration of adjuvant treatment (p = 0.546 and p = 0.627 respectively). Conclusions: Whilst our data suggests an encouraging similarity in overall survival rates compared with the literature, UCS continues to represent significant treatment challenges—with a paucity of guidelines available. Data regarding molecular analysis was not systemically available in our cohort, the more recent introduction of which (alongside the revision of endometrial cancer staging) will undoubtedly provide UCS patients with improved therapeutic options in the future.

Where does the vote for the United Kingdom to exit the European Union leave the NHS, the health workforce, science, and research? The BMJ asked a range of people for their thoughts.