Welcome to the July issue of TOG. I think I should start by updating you all on some of the changes that are afoot. Some of you will have already taken part in a TOG readership survey as part of our attempts to fully understand your needs and expectations from TOG and see if there are any changes we need to make to satisfy these. This review is ongoing with a view to it being complete by the end of 2013 when I can relay our conclusions. Meanwhile, the editorial team is already putting in place some innovative changes that we hope will appeal to you all.
I cannot start without firstly acknowledging the enormous contribution to the editorial board from retiring members Kay McAllister and Gary Frishman. As they move on to new challenges it allows me to welcome Kristen Matteson and Nicola Mullin to the board. I hope they will enjoy their time and help to shape TOG's development over the coming years.
Our latest step forward is the introduction of ‘early view’ whereby we publish our reviews online first ahead of the print journal. We are working hard to publish all our review articles on early view by 2014, which will considerably reduce the time from acceptance to publication. We are also strengthening the links with BJOG by commissioning CPD questions from selected articles in BJOG and these are available now to complement the CPD material from TOG.
Again, thank you for all your feedback and please keep it coming. The board looks at all suggestions related to either content or format so no thoughts are too small.
So what of the content this time? Our authors for this issue are drawn from the worlds of physicians, scientists, obstetricians, gynaecologists and neonatologists. I would like to draw your attention to the two Ethics papers towards the back of the issue on pages 184 and 189 which we have paired together as they present contrasting, but not conflicting, views on a specific clinical problem. One article relates to the care of women where their fetus has a lethal anomaly and the accompanying article covers the current position in the UK in relation to organ donation from the fetus in these circumstances. Whilst not a situation encountered on a daily basis, it could be the next woman through the antenatal clinic door for any practising obstetrician and these articles should prepare the reader for what might prove to be a series of challenging consultations.
So, moving on from something very rare to a slightly more common problem in obstetrics – that of postpartum psychosis (page 145). Okay, so 1 in 1000 isn't that common but there is, as you will know, a massive over-representation of psychotic illness in maternal mortality and morbidity reports and this comprehensive clinical review is a useful reminder to us all that 50% of these women present from the very low risk population. As such, I've already tested this article on some of our midwifery teams who found it really easy to read and have begun to disseminate it further.
In gynaecology I enjoyed the review on ambulatory hysteroscopy (page 159) which I felt complemented the RCOG Green-top guideline nicely. It is nice to see the issues of comorbidities and general anaesthesia brought into context in relation to risk, as well as a recognition that even a technique as ‘routine’ as hysteroscopy still requires further research to establish its role in some clinical management protocols.
On page 177, for a different slant on reproductive medicine and oncology, we have a review of the literature exploring the association between infertility, its treatment and the subsequent risk of malignancy for either the mother or her fetus. Add to this the reviews on the management of vault prolapse (page 167), pelvic congestion syndrome (page 151) and polycystic ovary syndrome and hyperandrogenism (page 171), and I think TOG really is delivering something for all yet again.
Beyond the reviews and ethics papers in this issue, look out for the website reviews this month on page 208. They are all based on revalidation websites to help guide you to the appropriate resources for your individual needs.
So keep submitting those abstracts and letters. Let me know what's right as well as where we could do better and hopefully we can keep your CPD read as enjoyable and valuable as possible.
Jason Waugh MRCOG
Royal Victoria Infirmary, Newcastle
Mohamed Abdel-Fattah MRCOG
University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen
Jo Anthony MA FRCOG
Northampton General Hospital NHS Trust
(Chair of the RCOG Revalidation Committee)
Kate Harding FRCOG
Guy's and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation
Justin Konje FMCOG (Nig) FWACS MRCOG
University of Leicester, Leicester (CPD Editor)
Kate Langford MA MD FRCOG
Guy's and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation
Kay McAllister DFFP MRCOG
The Sandyford Initiative, Glasgow
David Parkin MD FRCOG
Aberdeen Royal Infirmary, Aberdeen
Mark Roberts MD MRCOG
Royal Victoria Infirmary,
Newcastle Upon Tyne
Thomas Tang MD MRCOG
Regional Fertility Centre, Royal Maternity Hospital, Belfast
International advisory board
Ben CP Chan FRCOG
Private practice and Queen Mary Hospital, Hong Kong
Ki-Hong Chang MD PhD
Ajou University School of Medicine, Korea
Peter L Dwyer FRANZCOG FRCOG CU
Mercy Hospital for Women, Melbourne, Australia
Amr El-Shalakany MSc MD FRCOG
Ain Shams University Maternity Hospital, Cairo, Egypt
Gary Frishman MD
Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown
University and Women & Infants Hospital
of Rhode Island, USA
Henry Murray MRCOG
Dimitrios Koleskas MRCOG
Euroclinic, Athens, Greece
Duru Shah MD FCPS FICS FICOG DGO DFP FICMCH
Jaslok Hospital, Sir Hurkinsondas Hospital
and Breach Candy Research Centers, India
David Shaker FRCSEd FRCOG FRANZCOG
University of Queensland, Rockhampton Base Hospital and Mater Private Hospital, Australia
Ian Symonds DM MRCOG FRANZCOG ILTM
John Hunter Hospital, New South Wales,
Dirk Timmerman MD PhD
University Hospitals Leuven, Belgium