An infamous peer-reviewed study that measured the attractiveness of women with endometriosis has been retracted by a gynaecology journal after it was labelled ¡°unfathomably sexist¡±, ¡°disgusting¡± and ¡°abhorrent¡±.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.

É«ºÐÖ±²¥

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.

É«ºÐÖ±²¥

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has not apologised for the study, it published a??from its authors on 4 August in which they asked for the paper to be withdrawn, ?reported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¡±.

É«ºÐÖ±²¥

¡°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¡±.

jack.grove@timeshighereducation.com