PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Settings

Discipline: search.filters.discipline.OrthopaedicsSubject: search.filters.subject.Gender

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 8 of 8
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender disparities among speakers at major spine conferences Open PDF 
    (Elsevier BV, 2025-10)
    Lee, Yunsoo
    ;
    Issa, Tariq Z.
    ;
    Lambrechts, Mark J.
    ;
    Carey, Preston
    ;
    Becsey, Alexander
    PURPOSE: To examine 10-year trends in gender representation in speaking roles at major spine conferences. BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Medical conferences play an important role in career opportunities. There is little analysis on gender representation of major spine conferences despite several studies demonstrating gender disparities within spine surgery. STUDY DESIGN: Observational study. SAMPLE: A total of 20,181 abstract speakers across 10 years of academic conferences for 6 spine societies. OUTCOME MEASURES: Percent of female abstract presenters. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We collated the annual meeting programs of six major spine conferences (North American Spine Society (NASS), Scoliosis Research Society (SRS), International Meeting on Advanced Spine Techniques (IMAST), Global Spine Congress (GSC), American Association of Neurological Surgeons/Congress of Neurological Surgeons (AANS/CNS) Spine Summit, and the Cervical Spine Research Society (CSRS)) dating from 2013 to 2022. Departmental websites, society webpages, or personal social media were identified for images or the use of gendered pronouns in order to determine speaker gender for each speaker type. All categorical variables were compared using Pearson chi-square analysis. RESULTS: Women constituted 1,816 (9.0%) of all 20,181 identified conference speakers. Female representation was highest at NASS (N=680, 12.2%) but lowest at CSRS (6.6%) and GSC (7.1%). Spine Summit (7.4%), IMAST (9.92%), and GSC (9.87%) demonstrated the largest annual percent increases in female representation. Institutions in Middle East and Africa (1.4%), and Central and South America (1.8%) supported the lowest percent of female speakers. Women were significantly less likely to be speakers or moderators/course faculty than to be podium abstract presenters (p<.001). The percent of women as invited speakers (10.4% vs 5.5%, p=.001) and moderators (11.4% vs 3.7%, p<.001) increased significantly over the study period, with annual increases of 8.8% and 20.8%, respectively, from 2013 to 2022 (p<.001). CONCLUSIONS: While academic spine societies have made significant progress in promoting gender representation, especially among invited speakers and session moderators, women continue to be underrepresented compared to the percent of women in orthopedic surgery and neurosurgery
  • Item type:Publication,
    Shattering the Glass Scalpel: Analyzing Female Representation in Orthopedic Surgery Across the United States Open PDF 
    (Springer Science and Business Media LLC, 2025-03-05)
    Loyst, Rachel A
    ;
    Hidalgo Perea, Sofia
    ;
    Vanhelmond, Taylor
    ;
    Patterson, Diana
    Background Orthopedic surgery has historically been a male-dominated field, with slower growth in female participation compared to other surgical specialties. The present study aims to assess the extent of this influence, examine whether the dynamic is changing, and further analyze female participation trends, focusing on various regions of the United States and including analyses of female residents. Methodology Orthopedic surgery residency programs were surveyed online. A list of 200 programs was sourced from the Association of American Medical Colleges, which provided details including the program names, cities, states, regions, and website links. The homepages of the residency program as well as the department of orthopedic surgery were surveyed for any mention of women or female in orthopedics, number of female residents, total number of residents (class of 2025-2029), number of female faculty operative orthopedic faculty, total number of operative orthopedic faculty physicians, specialty of the female orthopedic faculty, program director gender, assistant program director gender, and chair of the program gender. Data analyses were performed using SPSS Software version 28.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA) and Rstudio version 1.4.1106 (Boston, MA, USA). Results In total, 55 Midwest (28%), 53 Northeast (27%), 63 South (32%), and 27 West (14%) orthopedic surgery residency programs were included. Female orthopedic surgery residents comprised 23.7% of all orthopedic residents across the United States. When analyzed by geographic region, female residents comprised 22.7% of all residents in the Midwest, 24.3% in the Northeast, 22.5% in the South, and 27.0% in the West. In the Northeast region, there was a notable upward trend in the percentage of female residents across PGY5 to PGY1 years (τ = 1, p = 0.027). A total of 25 (12.6%) programs had a section in their residency program or orthopedic department website homepage that mentioned and/or was dedicated to women or females. There was a significant association between region and homepage mention of women (χ² (8, N = 198) = 105.7; p < 0.001). A total of 12.9% of all orthopedic residency program directors were female, while 21.2% of all associate program directors were female. Conclusions These findings underscore the importance of monitoring and addressing regional disparities in gender representation within orthopedic surgery residency programs. By identifying trends and disparities, healthcare institutions and policymakers can implement targeted interventions to promote gender equity and cultivate a diverse and inclusive workforce.
  • Item type:Publication,
    The Role of Women in the Top 100 Most Influential Arthroplasty Publications: A Bibliometric Analysis Open PDF 
    (Elsevier BV, 2025-04)
    Payne, Camryn S.
    ;
    Boddu, Sayi P.
    ;
    Beckett, Nathan C.
    ;
    Cancio-Bello, Alexandra M.
    ;
    Bingham, Joshua S.
    BACKGROUND: Women account for 2% of arthroplasty surgeons in the United States. It is important to understand how women contribute to the literature in the field of arthroplasty currently. We compared the proportion of first, middle, and senior authorship by women in the top 100 most-cited hip and knee arthroplasty studies published between 2010 and 2024 to the national proportion of women hip and knee arthroplasty surgeons and evaluated the H-indices of authors by gender. METHODS: The literature search was performed on the Clarivate Analytics Web of Knowledge database. Once 100 studies met the inclusion criteria, those that did not originate from the United States or whose author first names were not included were excluded. The author's gender was determined by first name. The Scopus author database was used to determine the H-index for first and senior authors. RESULTS: There were 91 papers that met the criteria. These papers were produced by a total of 458 authors, of whom 13.7% were women. There were six (7.4%) of 81 unique first authors, 50 (15.8%) of 315 middle authors, and seven (11.3%) of 62 unique senior authors who were women. Women had lower average H-indices than men. CONCLUSIONS: Women's contributions to the most influential hip and knee arthroplasty articles are much higher than predicted given their underrepresentation in the field, indicating the substantial value they add to leading arthroplasty research. Despite this, disparities exist for women in authorship rank and H-index. These disparities may be mitigated by intentionally fostering greater support for women throughout all phases of orthopaedic surgery training to improve opportunities for impactful research and career advancement.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender Disparity Trends in Authorship of Hand Surgery Research Open PDF 
    (2022)
    Xu, Raylin F.
    ;
    Varady, Nathan H.
    ;
    Chen, Antonia F.
    ;
    Earp, Brandon E.
    Purpose Despite an overall trend towards gender parity, women continue to remain underrepresented in surgical fields. Until recently, women’s representation in hand surgery literature was largely unexplored. The objective of this study was to examine how authorship gender trends among academic hand surgeons have evolved between 2006 and 2019. Methods Original research articles published from 2006 to 2019 in 3 leading clinical hand surgery journals were extracted from PubMed. Publications with a full author first name were analyzed, and the gender of each author was assigned with the validated Genderize algorithm. Analyses were performed to evaluate authorship publication trends, unique authors, and research career productivity. Results From 2006 to 2019, 4,769 articles met the inclusion criteria, and the genders of 17,102 authors were identified. There were 2,848 (16.6%) female authors and 14,254 (83.4%) male authors. The proportion of female authors increased from 13.4% to 19.9% from 2006 to 2019. Similarly, female representation as first and senior authors increased significantly, from 10.9% to 20.1% and 7.6% to 14.2%, respectively. Of the 8,417 unique authors, 1,775 (21.1%) were women and 6,642 (78.9%) were men. Only 3.3% of these unique female authors published 5 or more papers during the study period. Among the 10 most frequently published authors for each gender, 18 of the 20 authors were surgeons. Conclusions There has been substantial progress toward gender parity in academic hand surgery over the last 14 years, and the proportion of women publishing in leadership positions has increased. Clinical relevance Increased gender representation in medicine and research is important for both patients and providers, and these findings suggest that ongoing support and mentorship for women in academic careers should be a priority.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Do females create higher impact research? Scopus citations and Mendeley readers for articles from five countries Open PDF 
    (2018)
    Thelwall, M.
    There are known gender imbalances in participation in scientific fields, from female dominance of nursing to male dominance of mathematics. It is not clear whether there is also a citation imbalance, with some claiming that male-authored research tends to be more cited. No previous study has assessed gender differences in the readers of academic research on a large scale, however. In response, this article assesses whether there are gender differences in the average citations and/or Mendeley readers of academic publications. Field normalised logged Scopus citations and Mendeley readers from mid-2018 for articles published in 2014 were investigated for articles with first authors from India, Spain, Turkey, the UK and the USA in up to 251 fields with at least 50 male and female authors. Although female-authored research is less cited in Turkey (-4.0%) and India (-3.6%), it is marginally more cited in Spain (0.4%), the UK (0.4%), and the USA (0.2%). Female-authored research has fewer Mendeley readers in India (-1.1%) but more in Spain (1.4%), Turkey (1.1%), the UK (2.7%) and the USA (3.0%). Thus, whilst there may be little practical gender difference in citation impact in countries with mature science systems, the higher female readership impact suggests a wider audience for female-authored research. The results also show that the conclusions from a gender analysis depend on the field normalisation method. A theoretically informed decision must therefore be made about which normalisation to use. The results also suggest that arithmetic mean-based field normalisation is favourable to males. © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender trends in authorship of spine-related academic literature—a 39-year perspective Open PDF 
    (2017)
    Sing, D.C.
    ;
    Jain, D.
    ;
    Ouyang, D.
    Background Context Despite recent advances in gender equity in medicine, the representation of women in orthopedic and neurosurgery remains particularly low. Furthermore, compared with their male colleagues, female faculty members are less likely to publish research, limiting opportunities in the academic promotion process. Understanding disparities in research productivity provides insight into the “gender gap” in the spine surgeon workforce. Purpose This study aims to determine the representation and longevity of female physician-investigators among the authors of five spine-related research journals from 1978 to 2016. Study Design This is a retrospective bibliometric review. Methods The authors of original research articles from five prominent spine-related journals (European Spine Journal, The Spine Journal, Spine, Journal of Spinal Disorders and Techniques, and Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine) were extracted from PubMed. For authors with a complete first name listed, gender was determined by matching first name using an online database containing 216,286 distinct names across 79 countries and 89 languages. The proportion of female first and senior authors was determined during the time periods 1978 to 1994, 1995 to 1999, 2000 to 2004, 2005 to 2009, and 2010 to 2016. The authors who had their first paper published between 2000 and 2009 were included in additional analyses for publication count and longevity (whether additional articles were published 5 years after first publication). Student t test, chi-square analysis, and Cochran-Armitage trend test were used to determine significance between groups. Results From 1978 to 2016, 28,882 original research articles were published in the five spine-related journals. A total of 24,334 abstracts (90.9%) had first names listed, identifying 120,723 authors, in total of which 100,286 were successfully matched to a gender. A total of 33,480 unique authors were identified (female authors: 31.8%). Female representation increased for first and senior authors from 6.5% and 4.7% (1978–1994) to 18.5% and 13.6% (2010–2016, p<.001). Growth in female senior author representation declined after 2000 (12.3% vs. 12.9% vs. 13.5% between 2000–2004, 2005–2009, and 2010–2016). Compared with male authors, on average, female authors published fewer articles (mean: 2.1 vs. 3.3, p<.001). Of 15,304 authors who first published during 2000 to 2009, 3,478 authors (22.7%) continued to publish 5 years after their first publication. Female authors were less likely to continue publishing after their first article (15.3% of female authors vs. 24.8%, p<.001). Conclusions Female representation in academic spine research has doubled over the past 4 decades, although the growth of female representation as senior author has plateaued. Female physician-investigators are half as likely to continue participating in spine-related research longer than 5 years and on average publish half as many articles as senior author. In addition to recruiting more women into research, efforts should be made to identify and address barriers in research advancement and promotion for female physician-investigators. © 2017 Elsevier Inc.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender disparities in shoulder and elbow publications Open PDF 
    (2022)
    Sequeira, S.B.
    ;
    Wright, M.A.
    ;
    Murthi, A.M.
    Hypothesis/Background: Female representation in orthopedics, and specifically shoulder and elbow surgery, lags behind other surgical subspecialities. There has been a growing interest in recent years to better characterize, and address, gender disparities in the field. The purpose of this investigation was to characterize gender trends in authorship in the shoulder and elbow literature from 2002 to 2020. Methods: Articles published from January 2002 to December 2020 in 15 clinical orthopedic and shoulder- and elbow-specific journals were extracted from the online PubMed database. Articles that included the first name of the first and senior authors and contained keywords related to the shoulder and elbow subspecialty were included. The Genderize algorithm was used to determine each author's gender. Gender-based publication trends from 2002 to 2020 were analyzed using descriptive and significance testing as well as logistic regression. Results: 34,695 articles met inclusion criteria and 52,497 unique authors were identified. Of these unique authors, 10,175 (19.4%) were female and 42,322 (80.6%) were male. On average, each unique female author published 1.7 ± 0.1 manuscripts since 2002 and each male author published 2.5 ± 0.2 (P < .001). Female representation in shoulder and elbow publications began at 10.2% in 2002 and rose to 15.9% in 2020 (P < .001). Female representation in the lead author position began at 4.1% in 2002 and rose to 5.8% in 2020 (P = .009). Female representation in the senior author position began at 6.0% in 2002 and rose to 9.1% in 2020 (P < .001). Conclusion: Although female representation in first, senior, and general authorship lags behind male representation in the shoulder and elbow literature, female authorship has significantly increased since 2002. The same men tend to publish more frequently while the number of unique female authors surpasses the annual representation of female authorship. Efforts to improve female representation in the field of orthopedic surgery should include efforts directed at improving female representation in academic literature. © 2022 Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery Board of Trustees
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender and Geographic Origin as Determinants of Manuscript Publication Outcomes: JBMR® Bibliometric Analysis from 2017 to 2019 Open PDF 
    (2022)
    Rivadeneira, F.
    ;
    Loder, R.T.
    ;
    McGuire, A.C.
    ;
    Chitwood, J.R.
    ;
    Duffy, K.
    The Journal of Bone and Mineral Research (JBMR®), the flagship journal of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR), enjoys a premiere position in its field and has a global reach. The journal uses a single-blind peer-review process whereby three editors are typically involved in assessing each submission for publication, in addition to external reviewers. Although emphasizing fairness, rigor, and transparency, this process is not immune to the influence of unconscious biases. The gender and geographic diversity of JBMR® authors, editors, and reviewers has increased over the last three decades, but whether such diversity has affected peer-review outcomes is unknown. We analyzed manuscript acceptance rates based on the gender and geographic origin of authors, reviewers, and Associate Editors. The analysis included 1662 original research articles submitted to JBMR® from September 2017 through December 2019. Gender was assigned using probabilities from an online tool and manually validated through internet searches. Predictor variables of manuscript outcome were determined with multivariate logistic regression analysis. The acceptance rate was highest when the first and last authors were of different genders, and lowest when both authors were men. Reviewer gender did not influence the outcome regardless of the genders of the first and last authors. Associate Editors from all geographical regions tended to select reviewers from their same region. The acceptance rate was highest when the Associate Editor was from Europe. Manuscripts with authors from North America and Australia/New Zealand had greater overall odds of acceptance than those from Europe and Asia. Manuscripts reviewed only by Editorial Board (EB) members had a lower acceptance rate than those refereed by non-EB reviewers or a mix of EB and non-EB reviewers. Overall, the geographical origin of authors, reviewers, and editors, as well as reviewers' EB membership may influence manuscript decisions. Yet, the JBMR® peer-review process remains largely free from gender bias. © 2022 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR). © 2022 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR).