Clinical Focus

  • Family Planning
  • Obstetrics and Gynecology

Academic Appointments

  • Clinical Assistant Professor, Obstetrics & Gynecology

Professional Education

  • Board Certification: Obstetrics and Gynecology, American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology (2016)
  • Fellowship:Stanford University Clinics and Lucile Packard Children's Hospital (2016) CA
  • Residency:Kaiser Permanente, Oakland (2014) CA
  • Medical Education:University of California, San Francisco (2010) CA
  • Board Certification, American Board of Obstetrics & Gynecology (2016)
  • M.S., Stanford University, Epidemiology & Clinical Research (2016)
  • M.S., Columbia Graduate School of Journalism, Journalism (2009)
  • B.S., UC Davis, Biological Sciences (2005)


All Publications

  • Update on abortion policy. Current opinion in obstetrics & gynecology Conti, J. A., Brant, A. R., Shumaker, H. D., Reeves, M. F. 2016; 28 (6): 517-521


    To review the status of antiabortion restrictions enacted over the last 5 years in the United States and their impact on abortion services.In recent years, there has been an alarming rise in the number of antiabortion laws enacted across the United States. In total, various states in the union enacted 334 abortion restrictions from 2011 to July 2016, accounting for 30% of all abortion restrictions since the legalization of abortion in 1973. Data confirm, however, that more liberal abortion laws do not increase the number of abortions, but instead greatly decrease the number of abortion-related deaths. Several countries including Romania, South Africa and Nepal have seen dramatic decreases in maternal mortality after liberalization of abortion laws, without an increase in the total number of abortions. In the United States, abortions are incredibly safe with very low rates of complications and a mortality rate of 0.7 per 100 000 women. With increasing abortion restrictions, maternal mortality in the United States can be expected to rise over the coming years, as has been observed in Texas recently.Liberalization of abortion laws saves women's lives. The rising number of antiabortion restrictions will ultimately harm women and their families.

    View details for PubMedID 27805969

  • Self-Administered Lidocaine Gel for Pain Control With First-Trimester Surgical Abortion: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Obstetrics and gynecology Conti, J. A., Lerma, K., Shaw, K. A., Blumenthal, P. D. 2016; 128 (2): 297-303


    To compare pain control at various time points during first-trimester surgical abortion using a patient-administered lidocaine gel compared with a traditional lidocaine paracervical block.We conducted a randomized controlled trial of women undergoing surgical abortion at less than 12 weeks of gestation in an outpatient setting. The primary outcome was pain at cervical dilation as measured on a 100-mm visual analog scale. A sample size of 142 participants was planned to detect a 15-mm or greater difference on the 100-mm visual analog scale with 90% power and a significance level of .025, adding 10% for participant dropout and protocol violations. Participants received either 12 mL of a 1% lidocaine paracervical block or 20 mL of a self-administered, 2% lidocaine gel 20-30 minutes before procedure initiation. Secondary outcomes included anticipated pain, baseline pain, pain with speculum and tenaculum placement, pain after suction aspiration, and pain 30-45 minutes postoperatively.From April to October 2015, a total of 142 women were enrolled (68 in the paracervical block group, 69 in the gel group, and five not analyzed as a result of participant withdrawal). Sociodemographic characteristics were similar between groups. The mean pain score with cervical dilation was 60 mm (95% confidence interval [CI] 54-66) in the paracervical block group and 64 mm (95% CI 59-69) in the gel group (P=.3). There was no significant difference between mean pain scores at any time points measured.Self-administration of lidocaine gel before first-trimester surgical abortion is noninferior to a traditional paracervical lidocaine block and should be considered as an alternative, noninvasive approach to pain control for first-trimester surgical,, NCT02447029.

    View details for DOI 10.1097/AOG.0000000000001532

    View details for PubMedID 27400015

  • Self-Administered Lidocaine Gel for Pain Control With First-Trimester Surgical Abortion OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY Conti, J. A., Lerma, K., Shaw, K. A., Blumenthal, P. D. 2016; 128 (2): 297-303
  • Update on long-acting reversible methods. Current opinion in obstetrics & gynecology Conti, J., Shaw, K. 2015; 27 (6): 471-475

    View details for DOI 10.1097/GCO.0000000000000227

    View details for PubMedID 26536210

  • Leading the Way in Women's Health ... Through Journalism OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY Conti, J. A. 2013; 122 (4): 901-901

    View details for Web of Science ID 000330446900024

    View details for PubMedID 24051935

  • Postcoital Vaginal Rupture in a Young Woman with No Prior Pelvic Surgery JOURNAL OF SEXUAL MEDICINE Austin, J. M., Cooksey, C. M., Minikel, L. L., Zaritsky, E. F. 2013; 10 (8): 2121-2124


    Reports of postcoital vaginal rupture in the literature are limited to cases involving women who are postmenopausal, have recently undergone pelvic surgery, or have suffered genitourinary trauma.We report a case of postcoital vaginal rupture in a 23-year-old woman with no prior surgical history who complained of acute onset, severe vaginal pain after consensual intercourse.Examination under anesthesia revealed a 6-cm laceration of the posterior fornix, which extended into the abdominal cavity. The laceration was repaired using a combined vaginal and laparoscopic approach.Coitus-induced vaginal rupture in a reproductive aged woman with no prior pelvic surgery or other risk factors is a rare clinical presentation. Prior reports of rupture in premenopausal women have recommended repair via laparotomy. This case documents successful transvaginal and laparoscopic repair, and reviews the etiological mechanisms for coitus-induced injury.

    View details for DOI 10.1111/j.1743-6109.2012.02682.x

    View details for Web of Science ID 000322585400027

    View details for PubMedID 22429501