PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Settings

Discipline: search.filters.discipline.SurgerySubject: search.filters.subject.Biomedical Research

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 8 of 8
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender Research Gap in Orthopaedics and Trauma Surgery: Gender-specific Disparities in Submission of Abstracts to the German Congress of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery from 2015 to 2024 Open PDF 
    (Georg Thieme Verlag KG, 2025-04-30)
    Vogel, Carolina
    ;
    Bertsch, Vera
    ;
    Rollmann, Mika F.
    ;
    Histing, Tina
    ;
    Braun, Benedikt J.
    Gender-specific differences also affect the subject of orthopaedics and trauma surgery (O&T). While the proportion of women studying medicine is steadily increasing, the proportion of female surgeons in O&T is only 18.6%. This underrepresentation affects not only clinics but also research and is reflected in participation in scientific annual meetings such as the German Congress for Orthopaedics and Trauma Surgery (DKOU).This retrospective study examined the gender differences in abstract submissions to the DKOU from 2015 to 2024. The anonymised data were subjected to examination regarding gender, role in submission and academic title.The overall participation of women in the 82,813 abstracts was 20%. The proportion of women among submitters was 23.3%, among presenters 24.5% and among co-authors 18.2%. In the analysis of the female cohort alone, women were more likely to be submitters and presenters than in the male cohort (p < 0.001). The proportion of female participation in abstract submissions increased by an average of 0.5% per year over the study period. However, women were significantly underrepresented at higher academic degrees, such as habilitations (7.4%), professorships (7.6%) and university professorships (5.2%).The results show that the proportion of women submitting abstracts to the DKOU largely corresponds to the percentage in the field of orthopaedics and trauma surgery (18.6% in 2022), reflecting the overall gender disparity in this specialty. If this trend analysis were applied to the general development of gender parity in orthopaedics and trauma surgery, gender-equitable staffing of medical positions could not be achieved before the year 2087. To accelerate this development, targeted measures to promote women in orthopaedics and trauma surgery are necessary. This includes dismantling structural barriers and implementing specific support programs for female surgeons pursuing academic careers.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Sex Disparities in Spine Surgeon Leadership of Clinical Trials for Degenerative Spine Disease Research Open PDF 
    (Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health), 2025-08-28)
    Silvestre, Jason
    ;
    Walker, Jasmine J.
    ;
    Kang, James D.
    ;
    Ravinsky, Robert A.
    ;
    Lawrence, James P.
    Introduction: Despite increasing awareness, women remain underrepresented in academic spine surgery. This study assessed whether women were equitably represented among spine surgeon PIs of clinical trials for degenerative spine disease research. Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study of spine surgeon principal investigators (PIs) in the United States (2015 to 2022). ClinicalTrials.gov was queried for the most common diagnoses and surgeries for degenerative spine diseases. Characteristics of spine surgeon PIs were collected from academic profiles. Participation-to-prevalence ratios (PPRs) were calculated for men and women PIs relative to their prevalence among spine surgery faculty at accredited training programs. A PPR of 0.8 to 1.2 indicated equitable sex representation. A PPR <0.8 was defined as underrepresentation and >1.2 as overrepresentation. Results: In total, 129 spine surgeon PIs of 91 clinical trials were included in this study. Overall, there were 125 male (97%) and four female (3%) spine surgeon PIs. Overall, women were underrepresented among spine surgeon PIs (PPR = 0.64), whereas men had equitable representation (PPR = 1.02). From 2015 to 2018, female spine surgeons were underrepresented (PPR = 0.33), but achieved equitable representation from 2019 to 2022 (PPR = 0.95). Male spine surgeons had consistently equitable representation across the study period (PPR range 1.00 to 1.03). Women had equitable representation at assistant (PPR = 1.08) and associate (PPR = 0.31) professor ranks, but were underrepresented at the full professor rank (PPR = 0). PIs were funded by industry (54%), academic institution (44%), and US Federal (2%) sources. No differences were observed in funding sources by sex ( P = 0.36). Discussion: There are a limited number of female spine surgeon PIs for degenerative spine disease clinical trials, which may have negative implications on the vitality of the specialty moving forward. Future investigations are needed to understand the barriers women face in obtaining clinical trial leadership positions.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender disparities in scholarly productivity of US academic surgeons Open PDF 
    (Academic Press Inc., 2016)
    Mueller, C.M.
    ;
    Gaudilliere, D.K.
    ;
    Kin, C.
    ;
    Menorca, R.
    ;
    Girod, S.
    Background Female surgeons have faced significant challenges to promotion over the past decades, with attrition rates supporting a lack of improvement in women's position in academia. We examine gender disparities in research productivity, as measured by the number of citations, publications, and h-indices, across six decades. Materials and methods The online profiles of full-time faculty members of surgery departments of three academic centers were reviewed. Faculty members were grouped into six cohorts by decade, based on year of graduation from medical school. Differences between men and women across cohorts as well as by academic rank were examined. Results The profiles of 978 surgeons (234 women and 744 men) were reviewed. The number of female faculty members in the institutions increased significantly over time, reaching the current percentage of 35.3%. Significant differences in number of articles published were noted at the assistant and full but not at the associate, professor level. Women at these ranks had fewer publications than men. Gender differences were also found in all age cohorts except among the most recent who graduated in the 2000s. The impact of publications, as measured by h-index and number of citations, was not consistently significantly different between the genders at any age or rank. Conclusions We identified a consistent gender disparity in the number of publications for female faculty members across a 60-year span. Although the youngest cohort, those who graduated in the 2000s, appeared to avoid the gender divide, our data indicate that overall women still struggle with productivity in the academic arena. © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Sex Bias in Hand Surgery Research Open PDF 
    (2018)
    Kalliainen, Loree K.
    ;
    Wisecarver, Ian
    ;
    Cummings, Allison
    ;
    Stone, Jennifer
    It has been long recognized that sex-based biases related to participant inclusion exist in research. To help address inequities in research participation, the National Institutes of Health Revitalization Act was passed into law in 1993. Although this act was primarily designed to increase inclusion of females and minorities in research funded by National Institutes of Health, it has also helped raise global awareness of the value of routinely including females and minority groups in research. Subsequent work has demonstrated a continued gap in inclusion of females in medical and surgical research and female animals and cell lines in basic science research. Hand surgeons have recognized that certain conditions have greater incidence in one sex over the other, but there has been no widespread discussion on whether, when, and how sex should be used as an outcomes variable. This review investigated the recent hand surgery literature to assess for equity in inclusion of both sexes in research as well as whether outcomes were analyzed based on sex.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Association of Author Gender With Sex Bias in Surgical Research Open PDF 
    (2018)
    Xiao, Nicholas
    ;
    Mansukhani, Neel A.
    ;
    Mendes de Oliveira, Diego F.
    ;
    Kibbe, Melina R.
    Importance: Previous studies demonstrate sex bias in surgical research. Female participants and investigators are underrepresented in surgical scientific research. Objectives: To describe the distribution of male and female authors in 5 general-interest surgery journals, assess the association of author gender with sex bias, and explore whether investigators benefit from performing sex-inclusion research. Design, Setting, and Participants: For this bibliometric analysis, data were abstracted from 1921 original, peer-reviewed articles published from January 1, 2011, through December 31, 2012, in Annals of Surgery, American Journal of Surgery, JAMA Surgery, The Journal of Surgical Research, and Surgery. Excluded articles pertained to a sex-specific disease or did not report the number of study participants. An additional 119 articles contained gender-ambiguous author names and were omitted. Data were analyzed from April to June 2017. Main Outcomes and Measures: Male and female first and senior authors, number of female and male participants in each study, surgical specialty, and number of citations received per article. Results: Of the 3604 authors of 1802 articles included in this study, 2791 first and senior authors (77.4%) were male and 813 (22.6%) were female. The prevalence of male and female authors was consistent across all 5 journals and among clinical and basic science research. Articles by female authors included a higher median number of female study participants compared with their male counterparts (27.5 vs 16.0; P = .01), but sex matched the inclusion of participants less frequently (36% vs 45%; P = .001). No sex-based differences occurred between male and female authors in reporting, statistical analysis, and discussion of the data or in the number of citations received. Compared with studies that did not report, analyze, or discuss data by sex, studies that performed sex-specific data reporting yielded a mean of 2.8 more citations (95% CI, 1.2-4.4; P = .001); those that performed statistical analysis, a mean of 3.5 more citations (95% CI, 1.8-5.1; P = .001); and those that discussed the data, a mean of 2.6 more citations (95% CI, 0.7-4.5; P = .001). Articles with a higher percentage of sex matching of participants also received more citations, with an increase of 1 citation per 4.8% (95% CI, 2.0%-7.7%; P = .001) increase in percentage of sex matching. Conclusions and Relevance: Sex bias in surgical research is prevalent among male and female authors; however, female authors included proportionally more female participants in their studies compared with male authors. Notably, studies that addressed sex bias were rewarded by the scientific community with increased citations of their published work.
  • Item type:Publication,
    How Well Represented Are Women Orthopaedic Surgeons and Residents on Major Orthopaedic Editorial Boards and Publications? Open PDF 
    (2020)
    Rynecki, Nicole D.
    ;
    Krell, Ethan S.
    ;
    Potter, James S.
    ;
    Ranpura, Akash
    ;
    Beebe, Kathleen S.
    BACKGROUND: Recent studies indicate that women are substantially underrepresented as orthopaedic surgeons and residents compared with other specialties in medicine and medical school. The reasons for this are multifactorial and not completely understood, but previous studies suggest that women may be attracted to fields in which they have female role models. Given that women interested in academia and research may use female editorship and authorship as a proxy for female representation in orthopaedic surgery, we wanted to examine the proportion of women represented in orthopaedic journals and determine if it reflects the distribution of women in orthopaedic surgery as a field. We further wanted to understand if this representation has changed over time in the setting of a slowly shifting gender landscape within orthopaedic surgery. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) How are women orthopaedic surgeons and residents represented in orthopaedic journals compared with men? (2) Have these proportions changed in the past two decades in light of relatively new efforts to recruit women to the field of orthopaedic surgery? METHODS: The gender composition of editorial boards and first and last authors were obtained from the 1997, 2007, and 2017 volumes of the following journals: The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery (JBJS), the Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (JAAOS), and Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® (CORR®). Gender neutral names were searched to obtain a picture to ensure proper tallies. RESULTS: The total combined amount of women first and last authors increased from 88 of 1450 (6%) in 1997 to 152 of 1912 (8%) in 2007 to 723 of 5391 (13%) in 2017. Similarly, three of 113 (3%) editorial board members were women in 1997, three of 105 (3%) were women in 2007 and 10 of 107 (9%) editors were women in 2017. Of note, 0 out of 9 editors-in-chief were women. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the current percentage of women orthopaedic surgeons and residents, women are represented equally or in greater numbers as editors and authors in JAAOS, JBJS, and CORR. This may be in part due to women orthopaedic surgeons entering academic medicine at a greater rate than males. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Orthopaedic surgeons serving as mentors to prospective female applicants can cite female representation on editorial boards and as authors as an example of gender parity in the field. Additionally, active orthopaedic surgeons who are women interested in these leadership positions should be encouraged that these opportunities exist, regardless of gender.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Disparity in Sex of Surgical Journal Author Contributions Open PDF 
    (2021)
    Farmer, Diana
    ;
    Young, Lindsey
    Surgery has historically been a male-dominated field, despite growing efforts to increase female admittance and resolve sex disparity in medicine.1 Since 1980, the number of women admitted to medical school has increased significantly, but still only 20% of leadership positions are held by women.2 Studies on female representation in medicine have shown that female publication contributions as first or last author are significantly lower than the percentage of female surgeons in the workplace.1,2 In their manuscript, “Women as Authors of Randomized Controlled Trials of Minimally Invasive Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of 3 Decades of Trials,”3 the American College of Surgeons demonstrates that female authorship contributions significantly lag behind male counterparts despite upward trends in female authorship over the last 3 decades.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Despite Growing Number of Women Surgeons, Authorship Gender Disparity in Orthopaedic Literature Persists Over 30 Years Open PDF 
    (2020)
    Brown, Meghan A.
    ;
    Erdman, Mary Kate
    ;
    Munger, Alana M.
    ;
    Miller, Anna N.
    BACKGROUND: The most recent demographic data reveal that only 6.5% of practicing orthopaedic surgeons are women, and as far as we know, only two women have held chair positions in academic orthopaedic programs in the United States. Furthermore, orthopaedic surgery is the least gender-diverse speciality recognized by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education. The factors that contribute to the lack of gender diversity in orthopaedics remain ill-defined. A lag in publication productivity may be a barrier to career advancement for women orthopaedic surgeons, but this has not been well studied. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) What is the proportion of orthopaedic studies published in six major orthopaedic journals by women first or senior authors from 1987 to 2017? (2) Did men and women orthopaedic surgeons publish in equal proportions during the study period (measured in 5-year intervals)? (3) Are there differences in the characteristics (such as study type or subject focus) of orthopaedic publications authored by women and those authored by men? (4) Has the increased proportion of practicing women orthopaedic surgeons been matched by an equal increase in authorship by women orthopaedic surgeons during the study timeframe? METHODS: A cross-sectional analysis was designed to characterize trends in authorship of orthopaedic studies by women over time. All publications from the first issue of each of six major orthopaedic journals were evaluated at seven time points (1987, 1992, 1997, 2002, 2007, 2012, and 2017). Characteristics of each first and senior author (including gender, academic degree, and specialty), and study category of each publication were collected. Articles for which this information was not available were excluded (35 of 1073, or 3.3% of published studies, no difference in proportion of excluded studies between journals). The proportions of women and men authors were compared at the seven time points and for six study categories (basic science, case report/technique article, clinical medicine, economics/practice management, editorial content [including true editorials, letters to the editor, commentaries, and book reviews] and review/meta-analysis) using a Fisher's exact test or chi-squared analysis. We compared the rates of change of women authorship, practicing women orthopaedic surgeons, and women orthopaedic residents during the study period using an ANOVA and Tukey's honestly significant difference (HSD) post-hoc test with Cohen's D measure of effect size. RESULTS: From 1987 to 2017, only 1.7% (15 of 880) of senior authors and 4.4% (46 of 1038) of first authors of orthopaedic publications were women orthopaedic surgeons. Based on population proportions (that is, percent of practicing women orthopaedic surgeons compared with men), the proportion of women senior authors was less than would be expected at each time point after 1987 compared with men. There were no differences between the types of studies authored by women or men. Finally, during the study period, the rate of growth of women senior authorship was less than the rates of growth of both practicing women orthopaedic surgeons (d = 5.3, 95% CI, 4.8-5.6; p = 0.023) and women first authorship (d = -4.3, 95% CI -4.6 to -3.6, p = 0.030; estimated mean 3.3, p = 0.013). CONCLUSIONS: Women orthopaedic surgeons published a small proportion of academic orthopaedic research from 1987 to 2017, and women senior authors consistently published less than would be expected based on their population proportion compared with men orthopaedic surgeons. Furthermore, the growth of practicing women orthopaedic surgeons has not been matched by growth in senior authorship by women over the same timeframe. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This discrepancy warrants further exploration because a low rate of publication may negatively impact the career advancement of women orthopaedic surgeons and contribute to the overall lack of gender diversity in orthopaedics. We suggest that journals and publishers review their editorial processes to ensure blinding of author names during peer review and editorial decision-making, and to disclose those review processes to authors. We also suggest that institutions encourage women trainees and junior faculty to participate in mentorship programs and specialty societies that promote academic productivity.