PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Settings

Discipline: search.filters.discipline.Otology & OtolaryngologySubject: search.filters.subject.Research

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 6 of 6
  • Item type:Publication,
    Is the gender gap closing in otolaryngology subspecialties? An analysis of research productivity Open PDF 
    (2020)
    Okafor, S.
    ;
    Tibbetts, K.
    ;
    Shah, G.
    ;
    Tillman, B.
    ;
    Agan, A.
    Objective: The proportion of women specializing in otolaryngology–head and neck surgery (Oto–HNS) and seeking fellowship training has steadily increased over the last several years. In academic Oto–HNS, gender differences exist in research productivity, scholarly impact, and funding. This study aims to evaluate gender differences in academic productivity between otolaryngologists in early, mid-, and later careers stages and within various subspecialties. Methods: Departmental websites for all Oto–HNS residency programs were accessed, and data including gender, academic rank, and fellowship training/subspecialty field was collected. Bibliometric data including h-index, publication years, number of citations, documents, and coauthors was obtained from the Scopus database. Career groups were defined as early (1–5 years), mid- (6–15 years), and later (16+ years). Continuous data was compared using the t test. Results: Data was collected on 1,754 academic otolaryngologists (412 women, 1,342 men). Overall, men exhibited significantly higher h-indices, number of documents, citations, and coauthors and actively published for more years compared to women (P < 0.0001 for all variables). Similar trends persisted across all subspecialties. When authors were broken down into career groups, women and men showed similar research productivity across all career groups in the subspecialties of otology, facial plastics, and rhinology; however, in head and neck, laryngology, and pediatrics, women continued to lag behind men. Conclusion: This study suggests that female otolaryngologists within certain subspecialties are keeping pace with their male counterparts in publication productivity in the early career time frame. This represents a change from prior studies which have shown women to be less productive in the early career period. Level of Evidence: NA. Laryngoscope, 130:1144–1150, 2020. © 2019 The American Laryngological, Rhinological and Otological Society, Inc.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender Prevalence and Trends in Otology and Neurotology Publications Open PDF 
    (2021)
    Schauwecker, N.
    ;
    Kaplan, A.
    ;
    Hunter, J.B.
    Objective:To assess otology and neurotology authorship by gender, subject, and country of origin from 2000 to 2019.Study Design:Retrospective review of otology and neurotology publications in 2000, 2005, 2010, 2015, and 2019 from 10 prominent journals within otolaryngology.Main Outcome Measures:Demographics for first through third and final authors, including gender, degree, coauthorship, as well as number of authors, subject matter, and region of origin for each publication.Results:A total of 4,411 neurotology articles published in 2000, 2005, 2010, 2015, and 2019 were analyzed. During the study period, the proportion of female authors increased from 22.3% in 2000 to 33.9% in 2019 (p<0.0001). However, authorship position analysis demonstrated no increase in final female authorship (22.5% in 2019, from 19.4% in 2000, p=0.112). Geographic region analysis demonstrated a similar overall global trend toward an increase in female authors. When considering author gender by position, North America, the Middle East, and Africa failed to demonstrate significant increasing trends for female final authors. Female final authors were also significantly less likely to have medical degrees than final male authors, (37.4% versus 78.6%, respectfully, p=<0.0001). Finally, women published more often within the subjects of pediatrics and audiology (46.5% and 37.3% of final authors, p<0.0001).Conclusions:Female authorship in otology and neurotology has increased globally. With the predominant number of articles originating from North America, and articles originating from North America failing to demonstrate an increase in female final authorship, overall, final female authorship did not change during the study period.Professional Practice Gap and Educational Need:There is no comprehensive study exploring gender distribution within only the specialty of otology and neurotology. While it is known that more women are becoming otolaryngologists, it is unknown if this increase is reflected in otology and neurotology publications, domestically and internationally.Learning Objective:To understand if gender biases and/or differences exist within otology and neurotology publications.Desired Result:Identify trends in otology and neurotology publications to address particular barriers to female publication within the field. © 2021 Lippincott Williams and Wilkins. All rights reserved.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Sex Bias in Laryngology Research and Publishing Open PDF 
    (2022)
    Pasick, Luke J.
    ;
    Yeakel, Heather
    ;
    Sataloff, Robert T.
    OBJECTIVE: To investigate sex bias in laryngology research and publishing. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Articles published in 2019 in seven mainstream otolaryngology journals were reviewed. Original manuscripts were included. Study type (medical, speech-language pathology, basic science, or pedagogy), subject sex, ≥50% sex-matching (SM≥50), sex-based analysis, and bibliometric data including author sex were recorded. RESULTS: Of 1619 publications reviewed, 259 patient-centered original laryngology studies were included, totaling 7,130,991 subjects (3,411,741 [47.8%] male; 3,718,694 [52.1%] female; 556 [0.0%] unreported). 29 studies included subjects of a single sex and 14 did not report sex. 114 (44%) studies met SM≥50, and 95 (37%) used sex-based analysis; no differences were found among study types or location. Sex-based analysis was used less in single-institution (33%) than database studies (62%, P = 0.01). No difference in SM≥50 was found among single or multi-institution, or database. There were 1340 total authors (578 [43%] female). First, corresponding, and senior authors were 47%, 39%, and 35% female, respectively. Studies that had female first and/or senior authors did not differ in rates of SM≥50 or sex-based analysis or mean enrollment of females compared to studies with male first and senior authors. The proportion of female physician first and senior authors did not differ from the proportion of female Association of American Medical Colleges otolaryngology faculty, but was non-significantly smaller than the proportion of female laryngology fellows at four academic institutions. CONCLUSION: Laryngology research exhibits sex bias in subject enrollment and sex-based analysis. Female authorship was representative of national demographics and author sex did not influence the rate of sex bias.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Sex bias: Is it pervasive in otolaryngology clinical research? Open PDF 
    (2019)
    Farzal, Zainab
    ;
    Stephenson, Elizabeth D.
    ;
    Kilpatrick, Lauren A.
    ;
    Senior, Brent A.
    ;
    Zanation, Adam M.
    Objectives/Hypothesis Recent initiatives highlight substantial sex bias in biomedical research. The objective was to determine whether sex bias is present in otolaryngology and whether sex is appropriately analyzed as an independent variable in otolaryngology clinical research. Study Design Literature review. Methods We systematically reviewed all 2016 articles in three major otolaryngology journals: The Laryngoscope, JAMA Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, and Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery. Extracted data included study origin, location, subspecialty, number/sex of subjects, ≥50% sex matching (SM≥50), and sex-based statistical analysis. Results Six hundred of 1,209 articles comprising original clinical research were reviewed including 8,997,345,495 subjects (males: 3,898,559,264 [43.3%]; females: 5,095,592,583 [56.6%]; and unknown: 3,193,648 [0.04%]). There were 533/600 (88.8%) studies that included both sexes, eight (1.3%) included females only, five (0.8%) included males only, and 56 (9.3%) did not document participant sex. Only 280 studies (46.7%) analyzed data by sex, and 330 studies (60.7%) had SM≥50. Sex-based statistical analysis and SM≥50 were similar in domestic and international studies (48.7% vs. 42.8% and 60.9% vs. 62%, respectively). Database studies performed sex-based statistical analysis more frequently than single and multi-institutional studies (79.1% vs. 40.4% and 43.4%, P < .00001). Analysis by sex was more frequently performed in head and neck surgery (53.6%) and pediatric otolaryngology (51.3%), whereas SM≥50 was highest in pediatric otolaryngology (86.8%) and otology (82.4%). Conclusions Sex bias exists in the clinical otolaryngology literature, with less than half the studies analyzing sex. Acknowledging the intertwinement of sex with disease pathophysiology and outcomes is important. Eliminating sex bias in research and clinical care should become a major focus for otolaryngologists. Level of Evidence NA Laryngoscope, 129:858–864, 2019
  • Item type:Publication,
    Diversifying Researchers and Funding in Otolaryngology Open PDF 
    (2021)
    Fang, Christina H.
    ;
    Barinsky, Gregory L.
    ;
    Gray, Stacey T.
    ;
    Baredes, Soly
    ;
    Chandrasekhar, Sujana S.
    Research productivity is a key metric used in evaluation for advancement and promotion in academic medicine. There are known gender, race, and ethnicity disparities in otolaryngology research and funding. Female academic otolaryngologists have been shown to lag in scholarly productivity, representation at national meetings, leadership positions on journal editorial boards, and National Institutes of Health and industry funding. Underrepresented minorities have been shown to be less successful at obtaining Centralized Otolaryngology Research Efforts grant funding. Directed approaches, such as research funding for women and minorities or targeted recruitment and retention of underrepresented faculty, may move the field toward parity.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender Trends in Authorship of Original Otolaryngology Publications: A Fifteen-Year Perspective Open PDF 
    (2020)
    Arrighi-Allisan, Annie E.
    ;
    Shukla, Devki C.
    ;
    Meyer, Annika M.
    ;
    Kidwai, Sarah M.
    ;
    Barazani, Sharon H.
    Objective To examine trends in female author representation within original otolaryngology research between 2000 and 2015. Methods Original research articles published in 11 otolaryngology journals were analyzed for 2000, 2003, 2006, 2009, 2012, and 2015. The genders of the first and last authors for each article were recorded. Overall female authorship was calculated by summing the numbers of the first, last, and both first and last female-authored articles. Student t test and Cochran-Armitage trend test were utilized to determine significance between years and groups. Results Of the 9,623 research articles published during 5 representative years, 223 were excluded due to one or more gender-indeterminate authors. Female first authorship exhibited a significant upward trend from 2000 to 2015 (P < 0.0001), as did the proportion of literature with female first and last authors (P < 0.0001). Although female senior authorship in literature with an impact factor (IF) greater than 2 did not increase significantly (10.0% in 2000 to 10.1% in 2015; P = 0.738), this metric did increase significantly just within journals with an IF between 1 and 2 (9.7%–12.3%, P = 0.036). The proportion of articles with a female author in the first, last, or both positions increased from 28% to 39% (P < 0.0001). Conclusion Increasing female representation in otolaryngology literature may reflect the rising proportion of women within otolaryngology as well as greater mentorship availability. Despite these auspicious strides, female-authored articles nonetheless represent a smaller proportion of the literature, and female senior authors remain a stark minority. Future studies should identify the barriers to female access and advancement within the field. Level of Evidence III Laryngoscope, 130:2126–2132, 2020