Breast Health

COVID-19

Cervical Health 

Contraception

Curbside Consults

Dermatology

Drug Pipeline News

Endometriosis

Genetic Testing

Gynecologic Oncology

Gynecology

Fetal Imaging

Abnormal Obstetrical Ultrasound

Ultrasound

Women's Imaging

Breast Imaging

Women's Ultrasound

Imaging

Infertility

LARC

Legally Speaking

Life Transitions

Malpractice

Menopause

Mental Health

Noninvasive Prenatal Testing

Obstetrics

Opinion

Osteoporosis

Pediatrics

Practice Management

Pregnancy and Birth

Sexual Health

Sexually Transmitted Infections

Surgery

Technology

Urology

Uterine Fibroids

Vulvovaginal Disease

Well Woman

About

News

Media

Podcasts

Insights

Medical World News

Peer Exchange

Peers & Perspectives

Videos

Conferences

Conference Coverage

Conference Listing

Publications

Contemporary OB/GYN® Journal

Digital Supplements

CME/CE

Resources

Physician Fact Sheets

Interactive Tools

Supplements and Featured Publications

Subscribe

Partnerships

Elizabeth Gandee, APRN-CNP, is a nurse practitioner in women's health at The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center.

A new survey of over 1000 US women highlights widespread misconceptions about perimenopause, hormone therapy, and the importance of lifestyle changes during the menopause transition.

Elizabeth Gandee, APRN-CNP, highlights gaps in women's menopause knowledge

Articles

She joined the MJH Life Sciences team in December 2019. She graduated from Youngstown State University in 2019 with a bachelor's degree in journalism and a minor in political science. Prior to graduating, Morgan worked as the editor-in-chief of her college newspaper. She went on to work as an assignment editor at a broadcast news station in Youngstown, Ohio, before joining 

 You can reach her at mebert@mjhlifesciences.com.

New research reveals that maintaining healthy blood iron levels may improve cognitive performance and reduce brain fog in women during the menopausal transition.

Iron levels linked to reduced brain fog during menopause

A new study reveals the pandemic significantly worsened maternal death rates across all racial groups.

COVID-19 linked to surge in US maternal mortality

Nicky Herrick, MD, is a cardiovascular disease fellow at UC San Francisco.

The BRITE-MOM study at UCSF uses wearable ECGs to detect arrhythmias in pregnant women, aiming to improve early diagnosis and maternal cardiac outcomes.

Nicky Herrick MD; and Anushree Agarwal, MD, MBBS, highlight their study on cardiac arrhythmias in pregnancy

Advertise

Contact Us

Job Board

Terms of Use

Privacy Policy

Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Contemporary OB/GYN

Facebook

LinkedIn

RSS Feed

Spotlight

A Psychedelic to Treat Postpartum Depression?

CMV: In the Know

RSV Roundtable

STIs

Supplement: Closing the Gap in Cervical Cancer Screening

Vaginismus: Managing a Misunderstood and Underdiagnosed Condition

Why vNOTES Make Sense for My Patients

1rem

Authors

Mixed texture voluminous dermoid cyst, 11.5 cm posterior acoustic shadowing

The Stanford Obstetric Recovery Checklist (STORK) is effective for measuring outpatient postpartum recovery, according to a recent study published in 

Screening in large populations is often performed through patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs), making them the standard method for measuring recovery after childbirth. However, experts have noted difficulties in measuring postpartum recovery because of its unique and complex characteristics.

“A PROM designed and validated for use at the 6-week obstetric outpatient follow-up clinic visit could be useful for clinicians to facilitate discussion and counseling,” wrote investigators.

The Delphi method may be used to reach consensus among experts about a certain topic, leading to the development of new condition-specific PROMs. Therefore, investigators conducted a study to create a global outpatient postpartum recovery PROM using Delphi consensus across multidisciplinary stakeholders and patient representatives.

The STORK was developed across 3 phases, the first being identification of existing questions relevant to postpartum recovery. This was accomplished through a systematic review, in which items were selected from a list of 16 PROMs.

Afterward, STORK items were chosen using the Delphi method between January 11 and April 12, 2021. Sixteen stakeholders were included on the panel, from fields including obstetrics, maternal-fetal medicine, postpartum recovery, pain, epidemiology, psychiatry, sleep, nursing and midwifery, and PROM development.

Finally, feedback on STORK items was obtained through cognitive debriefing interviews with 10 postpartum patients. The STORK was then tested in English-speaking women aged over 18 years, with all modes of delivery and anesthesia modes included. Recruitment occurred 12 to 36 hours after delivery.

Postpartum recovery quality was assessed at baseline, as well as weeks 2, 6, and 12 postpartum. Demographic, medical, obstetric, and anesthetic data were collected at baseline, while PROMs were completed at each follow-up time point using REDCap software (Research Electronic Data Capture, version 14.1.4; Vanderbilt University).

PROMs completed included the 47-item STORK PROM using a 5-point Likert scale and the validated EuroQoL Five-Dimensions Three-Levels (EQ-5D-3L). Psychometric STORK properties at 6 weeks postpartum were reported as the primary outcome. This outcome was assessed through validity, reliability, responsiveness, and feasibility.

There were 500 items in the first round of the Delphi process, 165 in the second, and 47 in the third. Participants were aged a mean 33.3 years, with 1% being American Indian, 14% Asian, 7% Black, 14% Hispanic, 0.4% Pacific Islander, 63% White, and 3% other races and ethnicities. Sixty-two percent of patients responded after 6 weeks.

Structural validity and score correlations

Structural validity was reported for STORK when defining dimensions with a 4-factor model including dimensionality, model fit, item and scale properties, and differential item functioning for key groups. Differences in performance at baseline vs week 6 were found for interest in sexual activity and aches and pains-related items.

A correlation between STORK scores and EQ-5D-3L scores of ρ = −0.67 was reported. Additionally, STORK successfully differentiated between patients with good vs poor recovery, with a median STORK score of 151 indicating good recover and 129 indicating poor recovery.

Consistency was also found for individuals in the lowest and highest postpartum recovery percentiles. Additionally, reliability was found for STORK, with a Cronbach of α = 0.92, interitem correlation of r = 0.20, and split-half reliability of ρ = 0.98.

STORK scores increased across 12 weeks, indicating responsiveness. Increases between baseline and week 12 were 19% after spontaneous vaginal delivery, 31% after operative vaginal delivery, 27% after scheduled cesarean delivery, and 20% after nonscheduled cesarean delivery.

These results indicated STORK as a valid, reliable, and responsive PROM for measuring global postpartum recovery. The clinical utility of this tool may be determined through future research.

“Future studies are needed to evaluate the clinical utility of STORK by comparing it with standard care for evaluation of outpatient postpartum recovery and to evaluate its performance in different patient groups, languages, and health care settings,” wrote investigators.

Sultan P, Pandal P, Murthy A, et al. Development and validation of the Stanford Obstetric Recovery Checklist (STORK): A Delphi consensus and multicenter clinical validation study. 

. 2025;8(4):e255713. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2025.5713

Ciechanowicz S﻿, Setty T﻿, Robson E﻿, et al. Development and evaluation of an obstetric quality-of-recovery score (ObsQoR-11) after elective caesarean delivery.﻿ 

. 2019;122(1):69-78. doi:10.1016/j.bja.2018.06.011

A new study shows the Stanford Obstetric Recovery Checklist is a valid, reliable, and responsive tool for assessing outpatient postpartum recovery at multiple stages.

Clinical

STORK proven effective for measuring postpartum recovery

Saying "obstetrician-gynecologist" is a mouthful for most people, and it's probably the most abbreviated specialty in medicine, both spoken and written. However, there doesn't seem to be a consensus on how to pronounce OB-GYN. First, is it the two-syllable "O-B" or the monosyllabic "Ob"? Second, is it "gin" or "gyne" (like "Lyme")? I wonder if you have a preference. I know I do.

Almost nobody says "obstetrician-gynecologist" when speaking about these specialist physicians. But what's the "correct" way to pronounce OB/GYN?

Is It Ob-Gin or Ob-Gyne?

As we turn the page to a new era, it is with both pride and gratitude that we present the final print edition of 

. Since its inception in 1972, for over 50 years, this journal has been a steadfast resource for busy practitioners, offering clear, evidence-based articles that have supported daily clinical decision-making. What began as a vision by John Queenan, MD, has evolved into a foundational tool for health care professionals, shaping how we approach patient care, educate our peers, and advocate for women’s health.

One of the journal’s key achievements has been its ability to translate the latest research into practical, usable knowledge for clinicians. In a rapidly changing field like obstetrics and gynecology, where new studies and technologies emerge constantly, providing timely and relevant information has been essential. 

 has excelled in offering content that speaks directly to the needs of practitioners, ensuring that our busy colleagues have access to evidence-based guidance that enhances patient care.

Queenan’s pioneering leadership laid the groundwork for 

 to become a trusted voice in the ob-gyn community. His unwavering commitment to making complex topics accessible to busy clinicians set the tone for the journal’s success. Under his guidance, 

 became known for its evidence-driven content and clear, actionable insights, empowering practitioners to make informed decisions amid the busy pace of their practices. Whether discussing advances in prenatal care or diving into complex gynecological issues, Queenan’s vision ensured that every article was both relevant and practical.

Following Queenan, Charles Lockwood, MD, took the helm, building on what Queenan had created with his forward-thinking approach. Under his stewardship, 

 adapted to the rapidly changing landscape of the field. In addition, Lockwood elevated the journal with national award-winning editorials.

In 2020, I assumed the role of editor in chief, continuing the legacy of my mentors and colleagues Queenan and Lockwood. My goals included upholding an ongoing commitment to improving maternal and fetal health; championing patient-centered care; and ensuring that 

 continues to provide concise, clear, and simple information on complex topics, decipher the myriad of new studies and data, and provide context to understand how and whether they should change our care and management. I have worked to keep the journal at the forefront of the ob-gyn community, further enhancing its role as a vital resource for clinicians dedicated to improving patient outcomes.

 has mirrored the ongoing transformation within the field. From Queenan’s original vision to my leadership, the journal has stayed on the cutting edge, reflecting the latest research, technological advancements, and shifting paradigms in patient care. It has explored everything from maternal health disparities to innovative fertility treatments, always striving to offer a comprehensive, evidence-based perspective.

’s print edition, it is by no means the end of the journal. We are excited that 

 will continue to thrive in an online format. Our commitment to the busy practitioner remains unwavering.

We want to take a moment to express our deep appreciation to the many contributors who have helped shape this journal over the years: our visionary editors; expert authors; and, most importantly, the dedicated clinicians who have relied on 

 as a trusted source of information. This final print edition is a celebration of our legacy and the profound impact the journal has had on the profession. Thank you for being a part of this incredible journey. We look forward to continuing our work together in the digital age and beyond. Here’s to the next chapter of 

Marking the end of an era and the beginning of a new chapter, the final print edition of Contemporary OB/GYN celebrates over 50 years of evidence-based guidance and unwavering support for clinicians.

A legacy of excellence: Reflecting on the final print edition of Contemporary OB/GYN

In a recent interview ObGyn.net conducted for 

 on comprehensive care and cancer screenings at well-woman visits, the topic of stethoscopes came up. Ilene S. Gewirtz, MD, the interviewee, mentioned that she still carries a stethoscope and listens to her patients' heart and lungs at well-woman visits. She also said that she believes she's in the minority regarding this practice. We want to know if she's right.

POLL: Many women consider their OB/GYN their primary care provider. But like your primary care counterpart, do you carry a stethoscope?

Do OB/GYNs Carry Stethoscopes?

What is your diagnosis based on these images of the ovary?

Challenge your diagnostic skills with this image quiz: Is this ovarian lesion cystic in nature or something else?

Image IQ: Ovarian Cyst or Something Else?

Breast cancer is often diagnosed at an earlier stage among women with a history of screening mammography, reducing associated mortality, according to a recent study published in 

Screening recommendations and evidence gaps

The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommends women aged 40 to 75 years receive biannual screening to improve the odds of early breast cancer detection.

 However, the USPSTF has also stated the evidence to recommend screening in women aged over 75 years is currently insufficient.

“Identifying this potential difference in health outcomes based on screening history may facilitate a more accurate evaluation of screening effectiveness,” wrote investigators.

The cohort study was conducted to determine the link between screening history and breast cancer outcomes among older US women. Data was obtained from the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results-Medicaid linkage between January 1, 2005, and December 30, 2020.

This data included screening history, demographics, biology, cancer diagnosis, and treatment for breast cancer patients. Women aged at least 70 years with estrogen receptor-positive or human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–negative breast cancer determined by screening mammogram were included in the analysis.

Additional eligibility criteria included continuous Medicaid coverage from 5 years before diagnosis through 1 year following diagnosis. Receiving 1 or more screening mammogram within 5 years before diagnosis was defined as the exposure, with patient categories including no vs any screening before diagnosis.

The stage at diagnosis was reported as the primary outcome, classified as either very early or later stage diagnosis. Diagnoses were made based on American Joint Committee on Cancer TNM stages. Demographic, socioeconomic, tumor, and treatment-related covariates were obtained during diagnosis.

There were 13,028 patients included in the analysis, 3.6% of whom were Asian, 4.2% Hispanic, 6.2% non-Hispanic Black, 84.3% non-Hispanic White, and 1.7% other or unknown race and ethnicity. Of women, 38.5% were aged 70 to 74 years and 30.9% were aged 75 to 79 years.

Prior screening was reported in 77.5% of participants overall. Those with at least 1 primary care physician or annual wellness visit, aged 70 to 74 years, and non-dual eligible had increased rates, at 78.1%, 79.1%, and 79.9%, respectively.

Later-stage disease was reported in 29.3% of women at diagnosis, with a rate of 25.1% among women with prior screening. Among those without prior screening, the prevalence of later-stage diagnosis was 43.4%. This indicated a 54% reduced chance of being diagnosed at a later stage when having prior screening, with an adjusted odds ratio (aOR) of 0.46.

Being dual eligible and living in regions with higher poverty and lower education were also linked to later-stage diagnosis, with aORs of 1.17, 1.21, and 0.83, respectively. In patients with grade 3 or grade 4 tumors vs grade 1 tumors, the aOR for later diagnosis was 4.90.

The odds of breast cancer mortality were also significantly reduced among women with prior screening, at a rate of 3.3% vs 8% among women with no prior screening. This indicated an aOR of 0.63 for breast cancer-specific death among this population.

These results indicated earlier stage of diagnosis for breast cancer and reduced mortality among women aged at least 70 years with prior screening mammography. Investigators noted limitations in the data because of residual cofounding.

“Our findings support the potential for routine screening to improve breast cancer outcomes,” investigators concluded.

Huang S, Westvold SJ, Soulos PR, et al. Screening history, stage at diagnosis, and mortality in screen-detected breast cancer. 

. 2025;8(4):e255322. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2025.5322

Nicholson WK﻿, Silverstein M﻿, Wong JB﻿, et al; US Preventive Services Task Force.Screening for breast cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement.﻿

. 2024;331(22):1918-1930. doi:10.1001/jama.2024.5534

A new study found that routine mammography significantly reduces late-stage diagnoses and mortality in women aged 70 years and older.

Albana Cerekja, MD

Articles

Latest Updated Articles