An infamous peer-reviewed study that measured the attractiveness of women with endometriosis has been retracted by a gynaecology journal after it was labelled “unfathomably sexist”, “disgusting” and “abhorrent”.
The study, titled “Attractiveness of women with rectovaginal endometriosis: a case-control study”, was originally published by the journal??in September 2012, when it drew criticism from several scientists, including the US gynaecologist Jennifer Gunter who labelled its title “obscene”.
“Objectifying women has no place in medicine,”??Dr Gunter at the time, who said “this study of 31 women contributes nothing to medical literature”.
The Elsevier title, the official journal of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, “should be ashamed they accepted it for publication”, she added.
However, the study, which concluded that “women with rectovaginal endometriosis were judged to be more attractive than those in the two control groups” and “had a leaner silhouette [and] larger breasts”, was defended by its authors, a group of Italian obstetricians.
Its lead author, Paolo Vercellini, an obstetrician and gynaecologist at the University of Milan and a past president of the World Endometriosis Society, said that the study explored claims that a body type existed that was associated with the disease, a painful disorder of in which tissue from the uterus grows outside the uterus, sometimes causing infertility.
However, the paper faced far more intense criticism last year after it resurfaced on Twitter, with several leading medics horrified by the study’s attempt to rate women’s looks while they were suffering with the disorder.
In August 2019, Bryan James, an epidemiologist at Rush Alzheimer’s Disease Center, Chicago, called the paper “unfathomably sexist and just gross”,??that “there is absolutely zero clinical utility to this study.”
While the journal has not apologised for the study, it published a??from its authors on 4 August in which they asked for the paper to be withdrawn, ?reported
“We conducted the study in good faith and according to correct methodology,” they wrote, adding that they “believe that our findings have been partly misinterpreted”.
“But at the same time realize that the article may have caused distress to some people,” they continued, adding that “women’s respect is a priority for us, and we are extremely sorry for the discontent the publication originated”.
The withdrawal was welcomed by scientists who have campaigned for the study’s removal, but some expressed their disappointment that the journal had not apologised.
Rebecca Szabo, an Australian obstetrician and gynaecologist and academic at the University of Melbourne, told the?Guardian?that this “non-apology, this retraction, seven years after many people had written to…[the authors and editors], with no comments from the editor, I think is cowardly”.
