PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

Permanent URI for this communityhttps://gendermore.unimore.it/handle/123456789/1575

Browse

Settings

Discipline: search.filters.discipline.Allergy & RhinologyViewpoints: search.filters.viewpoints.Global

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender and authorship trends in rhinology, allergy, and skull-base literature from 2008 to 2018 Open PDF 
    (2021)
    Halderman, A.A.
    ;
    Rao, A.
    ;
    Desai-Markowski, S.
    ;
    Yang, A.
    ;
    Luong, A.U.
    Background: A recent analysis suggested potential narrowing of the gender gap in research productivity in the field of rhinology. This analysis did not, however, provide insight into how the genders are represented in the rhinologic literature. This study aimed to evaluate 11 years of literature to evaluate for gender differences in authorship position, collaborations, category and content of research, citations, and funding to gain perspective on how gender and authorship has changed over time. Methods: Authorship data for all articles on rhinologic subject matter published between January 1, 2008 and December 31, 2018 in four otolaryngology journals was collected. The gender of authors was determined by protocol. Category and content of research and funding status/source were additionally obtained. Results: Data were collected from 2666 articles. Gender of 14,510 authors was determined. Female authors accounted for 23% of the overall authors and male authors accounted for 77%. Female first authorship increased significantly over time, but there was no change in female senior authorship. The percentage of female authors steadily increased over time, whereas male authorship decreased slightly. Mixed gender teams were shown to be increasing in frequency. Women published more than expected in basic science and allergy and less than expected in skull base. On funded studies, women were significantly underrepresented as senior authors. Conclusion: This study represents the first assessment of gender differences in the rhinology literature. Areas where female representation can improve include senior authorship, increased involvement in skull base publications, and increased funding. © 2021 ARS-AAOA, LLC
  • Item type:Publication,
    Sex bias in rhinology research Open PDF 
    (2018)
    Stephenson, Elizabeth D.
    ;
    Farzal, Zainab
    ;
    Zanation, Adam M.
    ;
    Senior, Brent A.
    Background Analysis of general surgery literature has revealed noteworthy sex bias and underreporting. Our objective was to determine the prevalence of sex bias and underreporting in rhinology. Methods All articles in 2016 issues of Rhinology, the American Journal of Rhinology and Allergy (AJRA), and the International Forum of Allergy and Rhinology (IFAR) were reviewed. Of 369 articles, 248 met inclusion criteria. Excluded studies were cadaveric, meta-analysis/review, and editorial. Data collected included study type, demographics, and sex-based statistical analysis. Results There were 202 clinical and 46 basic science/translational studies. From 188 of 202 clinical studies with known sex, 1 included participants of a single sex. Sex matching >50% (SM50) was found in 81.9%, and 55.9% performed sex-based statistical analysis. Domestic clinical studies performed sex-based analysis more frequently than international (54.9% vs 44.4%) and exhibited a higher rate of SM50 (84.5% vs 80.3%), though these differences were not statistically significant. For basic/translational studies, 54.5% (24/44) provided sex breakdown. Among these, 29.2% included 1 sex, and 8.3% performed sex-based analysis. Of 10 using animals, 70.0% utilized 1 sex. The remaining 30.0% did not report sex. None of 4 cell line studies reported cell sex. Less than half (46.2%) of domestic and 56.3% of international studies reported sex breakdown; 7.7% of domestic and 3.0% of international studies performed sex-based analysis. Conclusion Although sex may impact outcomes, research without sex reporting and analysis is prevalent, particularly among basic science/translational studies. Future research must account for sex in demographics and analysis to best inform evidence-based clinical guidelines.