Editorial Comment

The authors ’ attempt to shed light on gender-based disparity in the training experience of urology residents is laudable. However, the bias introduced by the method of study entry is significant. Voluntary inclusion indicates confidence in the absence of undesirable findings or a genuine quest for programmat ic assessment. It is concerning that in this voluntary cohort, a gender-based discrepancy was identified, suggesting a more significant disparity if all programs were examined. Reports in which an entire surgical specialty training cohort (ophthalmology) has been examined have demonstrated significa nt differences in index procedures by gender.
Source: Urology - Category: Urology & Nephrology Authors: Source Type: research