PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION
Permanent URI for this communityhttps://gendermore.unimore.it/handle/123456789/1575
Browse
8 results
Search Results
Item type:Publication, Sex Disparities in Authorship Order of Cardiology Scientific Publications Open PDF(2018) ;Ouyang, David ;Sing, David ;Shah, Sonia ;Hu, JiaqiDuvernoy, ClaireBACKGROUND: Despite advances in the representation of women in medical training, women continue to be underrepresented in cardiology, academic medicine, and more specifically, in senior positions within academic medicine. Identifying disparities in research productivity and acknowledgment can highlight barriers to female representation in academic cardiology leadership, as well as in academic promotion. METHODS AND RESULTS: This bibliometric analysis included all authors of original research articles between 1980 and 2017 from 3 high-impact cardiology journals ( Journal of the American College of Cardiology, Circulation, and European Heart Journal). We identified 71 345 unique authors of 55 085 primary research articles during our study period. Female authors accounted for 33.1% of all authors; however, they represented only 26.7% of first authors and 19.7% of senior authors. Looking at the most prolific authors within this time period, female authors were not well represented, accounting for only 5% of the top 100 authors. Articles with a female senior author had more female middle authors than articles with a male senior author (mean 1.41 versus 0.97, P<0.001) and were more likely to have a female first author (0.37 versus 0.18, P<0.001). There was an increased representation of female authors as first and senior authors compared with the total number of articles with female authors over time ( P<0.001 for trend); however, female senior authorship rates continued to lag first authorship rates. CONCLUSIONS: Using a large database of published manuscripts, we found that female representation in published cardiology research has increased over the past 4 decades. However, women continue to be not well represented as first authors, senior authors, and in the number of publications. When women were senior authors, they published more articles with female first authors and had more female authors. In addition to recruiting more women into the field of cardiology, additional work is needed to identify and address barriers to academic advancement for female physician-scientists.Item type:Publication, Ending Gender Inequality in Cardiovascular Clinical Trial Leadership: JACC Review Topic of the Week Open PDF(2021) ;Van Spall, Harriette G. C. ;Lala, Anuradha ;Deering, Thomas F. ;Casadei, BarbaraZannad, FaiezWomen are under-represented as leaders of cardiovascular randomized controlled trials, representing 1 in 10 lead authors of cardiovascular trials published in high-impact journals. Although the proportion of cardiovascular specialists who are women has increased in recent years, the proportion of cardiovascular clinical trialists who are women has not. This gap, underpinned by systemic sexism, has not been adequately addressed. The benefits of diverse randomized controlled trial leadership extend to patients and professionals. In this position statement, we present strategies adopted by some organizations to end gender inequality in research leadership. We offer an actionable roadmap for early-career researchers, scientists, academic institutions, professional societies, trial sponsors, and journals to follow, with the goal of harnessing the strength of women and under-represented groups as research leaders and facilitating a just culture in the cardiovascular clinical trial enterprise.Item type:Publication, Gender gap in cardiothoracic surgery randomized controlled trial and post-hoc analysis of randomized controlled trial authorship from 2014 to 2020 Open PDF(2024) ;Shariff, Mariam ;Kumar, Ashish ;Stulak, John ;Naumann, Kathryn E.Blackmon, Shanda H.OBJECTIVES: To estimate gender disparities among first and last authorships in cardiothoracic randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and association of gender with publications in high-impact journals. METHODS: PubMed/MEDLINE database was searched from 1 January 2014 to 31 December 2020 using R statistical software via the 'easyPubMed' package to retrieve pertinent data. The 'gender' package was utilized to determine gender using the United States Social Security Administration Baby Name Data. The percentage of female first and last authors were computed along with determining the uniqueness of the names. The association of gender and publication in high-impact peer-reviewed journals was delineated. Jonckheere's trend was computed. RESULTS: The database search retrieved a total of 4820 RCTs, of which gender was encoded for the first author in 3247 (67%) RCTs, among which 911 (28%) studies had women as first authors, with a similar trend across 7 years (P = 0.23). Gender was encoded for the last author of 3204 (66%) RCTs, of which 622 (19%) studies had women as last authors, with a similar trend across 7 years (P = 0.45). A total of 627 studies were published in high-impact-factor journals, among which 79 (16%) studies had female first authors and 67 (13%) studies had female last authors. CONCLUSIONS: There is an obvious gender disparity of first and last authors in cardiothoracic surgery-related RCTs, with a similar trend across 7 years. However, the post-hoc analysis did demonstrate a positive trend with an increase in the number of female first authors, demonstrating progress.Item type:Publication, Gender Parity in High Impact Cardiology Journals Open PDF(2023) ;Petrechko, Oksana ;Faturos, Andrew S. ;Pal, Suman ;Khan, UmairMajeed, HarrisDespite increased female representation in medical training, women physicians continue to be under-represented in academic cardiology, particularly in senior roles of authorship and leadership. We analyzed the top 20 most-cited cardiology journals (31,540 total articles) between January 1, 2018 and October 31, 2021 for gender distribution of editorial staff and authorship. Our data demonstrated that only 27% of articles had women as first authors and 20% as senior authors. Women constituted 23% of editorial staff. There is a statistically significant negative correlation (R = 0.67, P = 0.0011) between the percentage of women as first authors and the percentage of men on editorial boards. Overall, female authorship increased from 26% first and 19% senior authors in 2018, to 29% first and 22% senior authors in 2021. Women authors are significantly under-represented in academic cardiology publications, and additional work is needed to identify and address barriers to publishing and academic advancement for women in cardiology.Item type:Publication, Geographic Mapping of Gender Disparities in Authorship of Cardiovascular Literature Open PDF(2024) ;Goel, Ridhima ;Sartori, Samantha ;Vogel, Birgit ;Okoli, KimberlyFranklin-Bedel, KaylaBACKGROUND: Women in cardiology experience considerable gender disparities in publications, which hinders their career advancements to higher faculty and senior leadership positions. However, the extent of these disparities across different types of cardiovascular literature is not well understood. OBJECTIVES: We investigated gender differences in authorship across various cardiovascular publications over a decade and examined geographic variations in the representation of women authors. METHODS: All papers published from January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2019, in 4 major cardiovascular journals (Journal of the American College of Cardiology, European Heart Journal, Journal of the American Medical Association Cardiology, and Nature Reviews Cardiology) were reviewed. RESULTS: Of the 18,535 papers with 111,562 authors, 20.6% of the authors were women, and 47.7% of the papers had no women authors. Over 10 years, the proportion of women authors remained low (20.7% in 2010 to 21.4% in 2019), with the lowest proportion in editorial papers (14.8%) and the highest in research papers (21.8%). More women as first (34.6%) and last (47.6%) authors were affiliated with institutions in the United States compared with other countries. The proportion of women middle-order authors was higher on papers with women as first authors (29.4% vs 20.5%) or last authors (30.6% vs 21.3%), compared with papers with men as first or last authors, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Over the past decade, the proportion of women authors across all article types in major cardiovascular journals remained low. A call to action is needed to promote women in cardiology and provide them with equitable opportunities.Item type:Publication, Gender gap in articles published in European Radiology and CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology: evolution between 2002 and 2016 Open PDF(2020) ;Bernard, Chloé ;Pommier, Romain ;Vilgrain, ValérieRonot, MaximeOBJECTIVES: To evaluate gender differences in the authorship of articles published in two major European radiology journals, European Radiology (EurRad) and CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology (CVIR). METHODS: A retrospective bibliometric analysis was performed of 2632 papers published in EurRad and CVIR sampled over a period of 14 years (2002-2016). The authors' gender was determined. The analysis was focused on first and last authors. In addition, the characteristics of the articles (type, origin, radiological subspecialty, and country) were noted. RESULTS: Overall, 23% of first authors and 10% of the last authors were women. The proportion of women significantly increased over time in EurRad from 22% in 2002 to 35% in 2016 for first authors (p > 0.001), and from 13% in 2002 to 18% in 2016 for last authors (p = 0.05). There was no significant increase in the proportion of female authors in CVIR over time. Female authors were more frequently identified in breast imaging (48%), pediatrics, and gynecological imaging (29%). There were more female authors in articles from Spain (34%), the Netherlands (28%), France, Italy, and South Korea (26%). Forty-one percent and 21% of women were first authors with a woman or man as last author, respectively (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: There was a significant increase in female authorship in original diagnostic but not interventional imaging research articles between 2002 and 2016, with a strong influence of the radiological subspecialty. Women were significantly more frequently first authors when the last author was a woman. KEY POINTS: • There was a significant increase in female authorship in original diagnostic but not interventional imaging research articles between 2002 and 2016. • There is a strong influence of the radiological subspecialty on the percentage of female authors. • Women are significantly more frequently first authors when the last author is a woman.Item type:Publication, The Persistence of Sex Bias in High-Impact Clinical Research Open PDF(2022) ;Barlek, Mark H. ;Rouan, Jessica R. ;Wyatt, Thomas G. ;Helenowski, IreneKibbe, Melina R.INTRODUCTION: Sex bias is present in clinical research resulting in disparities in the treatment of women. Our objective was to identify the prevalence of sex inclusiveness of participants in human clinical trials after the passage of National Institutes of Health (NIH) and United States Congress policies in 2015 and 2016 to increase female enrollment in clinical research. METHODS: We performed an observational analysis of data from registered clinical trials published in three high-impact biomedical journals from January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2019. RESULTS: One thousand four hundred and forty two manuscripts with 4,765,783 human subjects were included for analysis. Significantly more males (56%) than females (44%) were included in all three journals (P < 0.0001). Sex matching ≥ 80% was found in 24.6% of publications. Industry funded 43.7% of all studies enrolling significantly more males than females (60.8% versus 39.2%, P < 0.0001). NIH funded 10.2% of studies enrolling significantly more females than males (52.7% versus 47.3%, P < 0.0001). North America and Europe contributed 82.6% of the studies with each enrolling significantly more males than females (P < 0.0001). The United States was the country contributing the most studies (36.1%), enrolling significantly more males than females (55.5% versus 45.5%, P < 0.0001). Cardiovascular disease was the subject area of the most manuscripts among medical specialties (19%), enrolling significantly more males than females (64.9% versus 35.1%, P < 0.0001). Studies analyzed by clinical trial phase, type, trial, and allocation enrolled significantly more males than females (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Sex bias remains prevalent in human clinical research trials. Improvements have been made in NIH-funded clinical trials; however, this constitutes a small percentage of overall studies.Item type:Publication, Sex Differences in Authorship of Academic Cardiology Literature Over the Last 2 Decades. Open PDF(2018) ;Asghar, Mariam ;Usman, Muhammad Shariq ;Aibani, Rafi ;Ansari, Hamza TahirSiddiqi, Tariq Jamal