PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Settings

Discipline: search.filters.discipline.AnesthesiologySubject: search.filters.subject.Sex Factors

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 5 of 5
  • Item type:Publication,
    Trends in Authorship in Anesthesiology Journals Open PDF 
    (2019)
    Miller, Joanna
    ;
    Chuba, Emuejevoke
    ;
    Deiner, Stacie
    ;
    DeMaria, Samuel
    ;
    Katz, Daniel
    Despite increasing representation in medicine, women continue to be a minority in academic practice and leadership, especially in male-dominated fields like anesthesiology. Differences in compensation and participation in leadership may represent barriers to career advancement for women in anesthesiology. Key factors for promotion in academic anesthesiology are research, funding, and publication. As such, designation as a first or senior author on a publication in a professional journal may act as currency for promotion. Here, we examine the prevalence of female first and senior authorship of original research articles published in Anesthesiology and Anesthesia & Analgesia during the years 2002, 2007, 2012, and 2017. Other manuscript characteristics assessed in relation to author gender included study type, subspecialty topic, and total number of authors. Of 2600 manuscripts studied, analysis of authorship by year demonstrated an increase in female first authorship, senior authorship, and editorial board membership by 10%, 9%, and 6%, respectively. Women made up a higher percentage of first authors on manuscripts with female senior authors. More nonexperimental studies had female senior authors than experimental studies. Female first authors had greater representation in the subspecialties of neuroanesthesia, obstetrical anesthesia, pain management, and pediatric anesthesia. Median number of authors was unrelated to senior author gender. This study shows increasing female first and senior authorship, as well as editorial board composition in 2 popular, high-impact anesthesiology journals. Recognizing gender-based trends in publications is important to develop strategies for the recruitment, retention, and advancement of women in anesthesiology.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Sex Differences in Academic Productivity Across Academic Ranks and Specialties in Academic Medicine: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Open PDF 
    (2021)
    Ha, Giang L.
    ;
    Lehrer, Eric J.
    ;
    Wang, Ming
    ;
    Holliday, Emma
    ;
    Jagsi, Reshma
    Importance: Despite equal numbers of men and women entering medical school, women are underrepresented in the upper echelons of academic medicine and receive less compensation and research funding. Citation-related publication productivity metrics, such as the h-index, are increasingly used for hiring, salary, grants, retention, promotion, and tenure decisions. Exploring sex differences in these metrics across academic medicine provides deeper insight into why differences are observed in career outcomes. Objective: To systematically examine the available literature on sex differences in h-index of academic faculty physicians across all medical specialties and all levels of academic rank. Data Sources: Medical literature with the term h-index found in PubMed and published between January 1, 2009, and December 31, 2018, was used. Study Selection: A PICOS (Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcomes), PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses), and MOOSE (Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology) selection protocol was used to find observational studies that published h-indexes for faculty physicians that were stratified by sex. Studies were excluded if they were review articles, retracted, or unavailable online. Ultimately, 14 of 786 studies (1.78%) met the inclusion criteria. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Data from 9 studies across 16 specialties were examined using weighted random-effects meta-analyses. Five studies were excluded because of overlapping specialties with another study or because they were missing appropriate statistics for the meta-analysis. Four of these studies were included in qualitative synthesis to bring the total to 13 studies. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary study outcome was the h-index. Results: The meta-analysis included 10 665 North American unique academic physicians across 9 different studies from the years 2009 to 2018. Of the 10 665 physicians, 2655 (24.89%) were women. Summary effect sizes for mean h-indexes of men and women and mean h-index difference between men and women were determined for all faculty physicians and at each academic rank. Overall, female faculty had lower h-indexes than male faculty (mean difference, -4.09; 95% CI, -5.44 to -2.73; P < .001). When adjusting for academic rank, female faculty still had lower h-indexes than male faculty at the ranks of assistant professor (mean difference, -1.3; 95% CI, -1.90 to -0.72; P < .001), associate professor (mean difference, -2.09; 95% CI, -3.40 to -0.78; P = .002), and professor (mean difference, -3.41; 95% CI, -6.24 to -0.58; P = .02). Conclusions and Relevance: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, women had lower h-indexes than men across most specialties and at all academic ranks, but it is unclear why these differences exist. These findings suggest that future investigation should be conducted regarding the causes of lower h-indexes in women and that interventions should be developed to provide a more equitable environment for all physicians regardless of sex.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender Differences in Authorship and Quality of Anesthesia Clinical Practice Guidelines From 2016 to 2020 Using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II Instrument Open PDF 
    (2024)
    Rong, Lisa Q.
    ;
    Martinez, Andrew P.
    ;
    Rahouma, Mohamed
    ;
    Lopes, Alexandra J.
    ;
    Lee, Jerry Y.
    INTRODUCTION: Women continue to be underrepresented in academic anesthesiology. This study assessed guidelines in anesthesia journals over the past 5 years, evaluating differences in woman-led versus man-led guidelines in terms of author gender, quality, and changes over time. We hypothesized that anesthesia guidelines would be predominately man-led, and that there would be differences in quality between woman-led versus man-led guidelines. METHODS: All clinical practice guidelines published in the top 10 anesthesia journals were identified as per Clarivate Analytics Impact Factor between 2016 and 2020. Fifty-one guidelines were included for author, gender, and quality analysis using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument. Each guideline was assessed across 6 domains and 23 items and given an overall score, overall quality score, and overall rating/recommendation. Stratified and trend analyses were performed for woman-led versus man-led guidelines. RESULTS: Fifty out of 51 guidelines were included: 1 was excluded due to unidentifiable first-author gender. In total, 255 of 1052 (24%) authors were women, and woman-led guidelines (woman-first author) represented 12 of 50 (24%) overall guidelines. Eighteen percent (9 of 50) of guidelines had all-male authors, and a majority (26 of 50, 52%) had less than one-third of female authors. The overall number and percentage of woman-led guidelines did not change over time. There was a significantly higher percentage of female authors in woman-led versus man-led guidelines, median 39% vs 20% ( P = .012), as well as a significantly higher number of female coauthors in guidelines that were woman-led median 3.5 vs 1.0, P = .049. For quality, there was no significant difference in the overall rating or objective quality of woman- versus man-led guidelines. However, there was a significant increase in the overall rating of all the guidelines over time ( P = .010), driven by the increase in overall rating among man-led guidelines, P = .002. The overall score of guidelines did not increase over time; however, they increased in man-led but not woman-led guidelines. There was no significant correlation between the percentage of female authors per guideline and either overall score or overall rating. CONCLUSIONS: There is a substantial disparity in the number of women leading and contributing to guidelines which has not improved over time. Woman-led guidelines included more women and a higher percentage of women. There was no difference in quality of guidelines by first-author gender or percentage of female authors. Further systematic and quota-driven sponsorship is needed to promote gender equity, diversity, and inclusion in anesthesia guidelines.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender Differences in Authorship in the Journal of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Anesthesia: A 28-Year Analysis of Publications Originating From the United States, 1990-2017 Open PDF 
    (2019)
    Pagel, Paul S.
    ;
    Freed, Julie K.
    ;
    Lien, Cynthia A.
    OBJECTIVE: Gender-based differences in scholarship among cardiothoracic anesthesiologists have not been studied. The authors examined the gender distribution of authorship of original research articles, case reports, review articles, and editorials in the Journal of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Anesthesia (JCVA) originating from the United States during four 3-year intervals to determine temporal changes in productivity of women in cardiothoracic anesthesiology. The authors tested the hypothesis that scholarly output of women has increased progressively in JCVA over time concomitant with greater participation in first, last, and corresponding author roles. DESIGN: Observational study. SETTING: Internet analysis. PARTICIPANTS: Authors of research articles, case reports, review articles, and editorials published in JCVA in 1990-92, 1999-2001, 2008-10, and 2015-17. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The gender of each author was determined by inspection of the first name. If gender could not be established easily, the author's institutional website was examined or an internet search using the Google search engine was conducted. First, last, and corresponding authors as well as coauthors were noted for each article. A total of 1,195 publications with 4,982 authors (1,032 women; 20.7%) were examined. Gender was identified positively in 98.5% of authors. Women were first, last, and corresponding authors on 22.4%, 10.3%, and 14.6% of publications, respectively. The percentage of women who were authors increased from 12.1% in 1990-92 to 20.9% in 1999-2001 (p < 0.05), but plateaued in 2008 to 2010 (22.3%) and 2015 to 2017 (22.9%). Greater percentages of women were first authors (26.2%), senior authors (11.8%), and corresponding authors (16.6%) in 2015 to 2017 compared with 1990 to 1992 (9.6%, 7.0%, and 8.7%, respectively; p < 0.05 for each). The contributions of women to research articles and case reports were primarily responsible for these observed increases, although women also made a substantial impact with review articles in 2015 to 2017. The percentage of publications that included at least 1 female author in any capacity increased in a time-dependent manner (p < 0.05) from 31.0% (1990-1992) to 74.4% (2015-2017). The proportion of female first or last authors (35.0%) appearing in JCVA during 2015 to 2017 was modestly higher than the current percentage of female cardiothoracic anesthesiologists practicing in departments with accredited fellowship programs (29.1%). CONCLUSION: The results indicate that scholarly output of women rose in JCVA over time, but gains in productivity have plateaued more recently. These findings are encouraging, but women continue to be underrepresented in corresponding and last author roles.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Trends in Gender of Authors of Patient Blood Management Publications Open PDF 
    (2024)
    Forkin, Katherine T.
    ;
    Render, Caroline M.
    ;
    Staffa, Steven J.
    ;
    Goobie, Susan M.
    BACKGROUND: Diverse representation in the field of patient blood management (PBM) may help bring varying perspectives to improve patient care. We assessed trends in gender of first and last authorship of recent PBM publications to evaluate diversity within the field. METHODS: Publications from 10 high-impact anesthesiology and blood transfusion medicine journals between 2017 and 2021 were reviewed using 19 keywords to identify PBM-related articles. Each publication title was reviewed independently to determine whether it met the inclusion criteria. A software program was used to identify the gender of each first and last author for the most common first names. Author gender that could not be identified through this process was determined by querying institutional websites and professional social networks (eg, ResearchGate). Any publication where the gender of the first and/or last author could not be reliably determined was excluded from the analysis. Trends over time were assessed using the Cochran-Armitage test. RESULTS: A total of 2467 publications met the inclusion criteria of the 2873 yielded by the initial search. Gender of the first and last author was identified for 2384 of these publications and included in the final analysis. Approximately 42.8% of publications featured a woman as the first author with the highest from the journals such as the Journal of the American Medical Association ( JAMA ) (48.7%) and Transfusion (48.1%) and the lowest from the journals such as the British Journal of Anaesthesia (24.1%) and Anesthesia & Analgesia (24.4%). Approximately 32.0% of the publications featured a woman as the last author with the highest being Transfusion (36.9%) and Anaesthesia (31.8%) and the lowest being Anesthesia and Analgesia (18.3%) and Anesthesiology (18.6%). Approximately 57.6% of publications had either a woman as the first or last author while 16.3% of the publications had women as both the first and last authors. Women authors comprised 32.6% of the publications with a single author. Women as the first or last authors did not change significantly over the study period ( P = .115 and P = .119, respectively). No significant difference was observed in the percentage of PBM articles with a woman as the first or last author, a woman as the first and last author, or a woman as a single author from 2017 to 2021 ( P = .089, P = .055, and P = .226, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The percentage of women as the first and last authors in PBM publications from the 5-year period of 2017 to 2021 was <50%. Gender equity in PBM authorship was identified as an area for potential future improvement. International mentorship and sponsorship of women remain important in promoting gender equity in PBM authorship.