PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Settings

Discipline: search.filters.discipline.SurgerySubject: search.filters.subject.Gender Disparities

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 7 of 7
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender representation trends in cardiothoracic surgery journal editorial boards Open PDF 
    (Elsevier BV, 2024-12)
    Higaki, Adrian Acuna
    ;
    Papageorge, Marianna V.
    ;
    Waldron, Christina
    ;
    Huggins, Lenique
    ;
    Brinker, Morgan
    Objective We aimed to characterize chronologic trends of gender composition of the editorial boards of major cardiothoracic surgery journals in the current era. Methods A cross-sectional analysis was performed of gender representation in editorial board members of 2 North American cardiothoracic surgery journals from 2008 to 2023. Member names and roles were collected from available monthly issues. Validated software programming was used to classify gender. The annual proportion of women representation was compared to the thoracic surgery workforce. Results During the study period, 558 individuals (3641 names) were identified, 14.3% of whom were women. The total number of editorial board women increased for both journals. The proportion of women also increased from 2.5% (3 out of 118) in 2008 to 17.8% (71 out of 399) in 2023 (P < .001), exceeding the percentage of women in the thoracic surgery workforce, which increased from 3.8% in 2007 to 8.3% in 2021 (P < .001). The average duration of participation was longer for men than for women (53.8 vs 44.5 months; P = .01). Women in editorial board senior roles also increased from 3.3% (1 out of 30) in 2008 to 28.6% (42 out of 147) in 2023 (P < .001), almost triple the increase in nondesignated roles from 2.3% (2 out of 88) in 2008 to 11.5% (29 out of 252) in 2023 (P < .001). Conclusions In recent years, the appointment of women to the editorial boards of high-impact cardiothoracic surgery journals and senior roles have proportionally exceeded the overall representation of women in cardiothoracic surgery. These findings indicate progress in inclusive efforts and offer insight toward reducing academic gender disparities.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender disparities in authorship in European cardio-thoracic journals Open PDF 
    (Oxford University Press (OUP), 2025-06-19)
    Galeone, Antonella
    ;
    Cleuziou, Julie
    ;
    Perrone, Fabiola
    ;
    Maffei, Irene
    ;
    Fiorinelli, Giorgia
    OBJECTIVES The goal was to evaluate gender authorship in 2 cardio-thoracic surgical journals. METHODS We performed a bibliometric analysis of all articles published from 2017 to 2022 in the European Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery and the Interdisciplinary Cardiovascular and Thoracic Surgery. For each article, the gender and academic rank of the first, senior and corresponding authors were verified by Internet search, email contact or use of the application Genderize.io. Articles were categorized based on topic, type and country of origin. The Cochran-Armitage test was used to evaluate gender authorship trend over time. RESULTS A total of 5243 articles were included in the analysis. Women represented 18% of first authors, 7% of senior authors and 13% of corresponding authors; no trend was seen over time. Women represented 16% of first authors and 7% of senior authors in adult cardiac surgery, 23% of first authors and 9% of senior authors in congenital cardiac surgery and 19% of first authors and 8% of senior authors in thoracic surgery. Male first authors were more frequently full professors (17% vs 5%) and associate professors (16% vs 8%), and male senior authors were more frequently full professors (48% vs 31%) and associate professors (16% vs 8%) compared to female senior authors. CONCLUSIONS The proportion of female authors is significantly lower than that of male authors in highest-impact European cardio-thoracic surgery journals, and no significant increase in female authorship has been demonstrated in recent years. Increasing awareness of gender disparities is essential to facilitate equal career opportunities and academic advancement for women in cardio-thoracic surgery.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Representation of women among cardiothoracic surgery editorial boards: Trends over the past 2 decades Open PDF 
    (Elsevier BV, 2025-03)
    Stuart, Christina M.
    ;
    Mott, Nicole M.
    ;
    Mungo, Alison H.
    ;
    Meguid, Robert A.
    ;
    Mitchell, John D.
    Abstract Objective The objective of this study was to examine representation of women on the editorial boards of cardiothoracic surgery-focused journals over the past 2 decades to identify changes over time compared with women cardiothoracic surgeon and trainee representation, and to highlight additional opportunities for improvement. Methods The editorial boards of 2 high-impact cardiothoracic surgery journals were reviewed from 2000 to 2023. Data on editorial board positions, including editors-in-chief, associate/deputy editors, feature editors, and general members of the editorial board were abstracted. The proportion of women editors was assessed. Data were compared with publicly available information from the Association of American Medical Colleges on physician specialty by sex. Results Of 3460 editorial positions, 332 (9.6%) were held by women. Women occupied 2.2% (1 out of 45) of editor-in-chief positions, 13.2% (78 out of 592) of senior editor positions, 11.5% (33 out of 287) of feature editor positions, and 8.3% (221 out of 2663) of general editorial board positions. The proportion of women holding any editorial board position significantly increased from 2.4% in 2000 to 18.2% in 2023 (P = .01). Overall, editorial board representation increased at a rate of 0.7% ± 1.3% per year, not significantly different from the growth of practicing women cardiothoracic surgeons at 0.3% ± 0.5% per year (P = .584). Discussion Representation of women on the editorial boards of cardiothoracic surgery-focused journals has increased commensurate with the increasing proportion of practicing women cardiothoracic surgeons, although remains at 16%. Work remains to continue the recruitment of women to cardiothoracic surgery as well as to identify the key elements that can support them in positions of leadership.
  • Item type:Publication,
    A Systematic Review of Gender-Based Differences in Hirsch Index Among Academic Surgeons Open PDF 
    (2019)
    Myers, S.P.
    ;
    Reitz, K.M.
    ;
    Wessel, C.B.
    ;
    Neal, M.D.
    ;
    Corbelli, J.A.
    Background: The h-index is a commonly used bibliometric in academic medicine which enumerates the number of publications (h) that have been cited h times. Recent investigations have suggested that gender-based differences in h-index may exist among academic physicians. We systematically reviewed studies of academic surgeons’ h-index, hypothesizing that a significant difference would exist between the h-index of men and women at all academic ranks. Methods: Peer-reviewed journal articles authored by academic surgeons of any subspecialization in the United States between January 1, 2006, and November 20, 2017, were reviewed. We excluded studies of trainees or gender-based differences in funding without mention of h-index. Two reviewers assessed article quality using the Newcastle-Ottawa criteria. Pooled estimates of standard mean differences (SMD) in h-index between genders were calculated using random-effects meta-analyses. A subgroup analysis based on the academic rank was performed. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I 2 statistic. Sensitivity analyses determined the effect of study on h-index. Meta-regression identified whether surgical specialty contributed to heterogeneity. Results: Twelve articles comparing h-index between genders were selected from 7950. Men possessed higher h-indices than women (SMD, 0.547; P &lt; 0.001; I 2 = 89.5%). Men exhibited higher h-indices at the assistant rank (SMD, 0.12; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.01-0.24; P = 0.039) but not at the associate (SMD, 0.14; 95% CI, −0.06 to 0.33; P = 0.165) or full professor (SMD, 0.12; 95% CI, −0.08 to −0.31; P = 0.25) ranks. Conclusions: The h-index is higher for men than that for women in academic surgery overall but not at individual ranks. Further investigations are necessary to address limitations in h-index and to further characterize the relationship between h-index, gender, and promotion. © 2018 Elsevier Inc.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender Distribution & Rank of Authorship in Surgical Literature Open PDF 
    (SAGE Publications, 2022)
    Selvakumar, Sruthi
    ;
    Zagales, Israel
    ;
    Newsome, Kevin
    ;
    Spardy, Jeffrey
    ;
    Santos, Radleigh
    BackgroundAuthorship of surgical literature is important for the career advancement of surgeons, and gender disparities in authorship may hinder the representation and leadership of women within academic surgery. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the gender distribution of first, senior, and overall authorship in peer-reviewed surgical journal studies across all surgical specialties to determine if disparities exist.MethodsPubMed, EMBASE, and Google Scholar databases were searched for studies investigating the gender distribution of authorship of surgical literature published before December 10th, 2021. Meta-analysis was performed and Cohen?s Q test for heterogenous effects was used to determine whether random or fixed-effects models were appropriate.ResultsFifteen studies investigating gender distribution of authorship met inclusion, which included a total of 136,627 pooled studies. The meta-analysis demonstrated the meta-proportion of first authorship for women to be 20.6% (95% CI: 13.9, 28.2), the meta-proportion of senior authorship for women to be 11.9% (95% CI: 6.6, 18.5), and the meta-proportion of overall authorship for women to be 23% (95% CI: 16.2, 30.7). In addition, the proportion of senior authorship for women was found to be significantly lower than the proportion of overall authorship for women (11.9% versus 23.0%, P = .0106).ConclusionThere is a significantly smaller proportion of women who are first, senior, and overall authors in surgical literature compared to their colleagues who are men. Sustainable and effective solutions aimed at improving the representation of women surgeons in surgical research and research leadership are necessary.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Social Perception and Academic Trends on Women in the Field of Neurosurgery: A Bibliometric Analysis Open PDF 
    (2021)
    Carpenter, K.
    ;
    Scullen, T.
    ;
    Mathkour, M.
    ;
    Dumont, A.S.
    ;
    Biro, E.
    Background: The ongoing trend of societal evolution in contemporary civilization has allowed increased inclusion of heterogenous identity groups into fields, such as neurosurgery, where certain groups have traditionally been underrepresented. In regard to the field of neurosurgery, the increasing recognition of the disparities faced by women is illustrated by a growing body of academic literature. Methods: We conducted a bibliometric analysis querying the PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Embase databases for articles on women in neurosurgery using the MeSH terms “woman,” “women,” “gender,” neurosurgery,” neurological surgery,” and “neurosurgeon.” Articles were excluded if they did not concern societal impact of nonmale population in the context of neurosurgery. Total citations, mean citations per year, publishing journal information, and author demographics were abstracted from included reports. Associations between abstracted continuous variables were evaluated using the Pearson correlation coefficient. Derived P values < 0.05 were taken as significant. Results: A total of 49 articles were included. Total numbers of citations per report were positively associated with mean citations per year (r = 0.7289, P = 0.0253), the latter of which was slightly negatively associated with the age of the report (r = −0.0413, P = 0.0009). Age of publication year was found to be negatively correlated with the number of reports published per year (r = −0.648, P = 0.0066). Total citations per reports were significantly correlated with increased numbers of citations during the last completed calendar year (2019: r = 0.8956, P = 0.0397). Conclusions: Recognition in societal evolutionary trends as evidenced by academic activity has shown increased focus on the explicit and intrinsic biases faced by women in neurosurgery. Recent years have seen significant increases in published reports concerning the subject, as well as rising academic impact per a given report. This phenomenon is speculated to continue, and understanding to broaden as societal perception continues to develop. © 2021 Elsevier Inc.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender disparities in academic vascular surgeons Open PDF 
    (2020)
    Carnevale, Matthew
    ;
    Phair, John
    ;
    Batarseh, Paola
    ;
    LaFontaine, Samantha
    ;
    Koelling, Erin
    OBJECTIVE: Previous studies have identified significant gender discrepancies in grant funding, leadership positions, and publication impact in surgical subspecialties. We investigated whether these discrepancies were also present in academic vascular surgery. METHODS: Academic websites from institutions with vascular surgery training programs were queried to identify academic faculty, and leadership positions were noted. H-index, number of citations, and total number of publications were obtained from Scopus and PubMed. Grant funding amounts and awards data were obtained from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and Society for Vascular Surgery websites. Industry funding amount was obtained from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services website. Nonsurgical physicians and support staff were excluded from this analysis. RESULTS: We identified 177 female faculty (18.6%) and 774 male faculty (81.4%). A total of 41 (23.2%) female surgeons held leadership positions within their institutions compared with 254 (32.9%) male surgeons (P = .009). Female surgeons held the rank of assistant professor 50.3% of the time in contrast to 33.9% of men (P < .001). The rank of associate professor was held at similar rates, 25.4% vs 20.7% (P = .187), respectively. Fewer women than men held the full professor rank, 10.7% compared with 26.2% (P < .001). Similarly, women held leadership positions less often than men, including division chief (6.8% vs 13.7%; P < .012) and vice chair of surgery (0% vs 2.2%; P < .047), but held more positions as vice dean of surgery (0.6% vs 0%; P < .037) and chief executive officer (0.6% vs 0%; P < .037). Scientific contributions based on the number of each surgeon's publications were found to be statistically different between men and women. Women had an average of 42.3 publications compared with 64.8 for men (P < .001). Female vascular surgeons were cited an average of 655.2 times, less than half the average citations of their male counterparts with 1387 citations (P < .001). The average H-index was 9.5 for female vascular surgeons compared with 13.7 for male vascular surgeons (P < .001). Correcting for years since initial board certification, women had a higher H-index per year in practice (1.32 vs 1.02; P = .005). Female vascular surgeons were more likely to have received NIH grants than their male colleagues (9.6% vs 4.0%; P = .017). Although substantial, the average value of NIH grants awarded was not statistically significant between men and women, with men on average receiving $915,590.74 ($199,119.00-$2,910,600.00) and women receiving $707,205.35 ($61,612.00-$4,857,220.00; P = .416). There was no difference in the distribution of Society for Vascular Surgery seed grants to women and men since 2007. Industry payments made publicly available according to the Sunshine Act for the year 2018 were also compared, and female vascular surgeons received an average of $2155.28 compared with their male counterparts, who received almost four times as much at $8452.43 (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Although there is certainly improved representation of women in vascular surgery compared with several decades ago, a discrepancy still persists. Women tend to have more grants than men and receive less in industry payments, but they hold fewer leadership positions, do not publish as frequently, and are cited less than their male counterparts. Further investigation should be aimed at identifying the causes of gender disparity and systemic barriers to gender equity in academic vascular surgery.