PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Settings

Discipline: search.filters.discipline.SurgerySubject: search.filters.subject.Randomized Controlled Trials

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Item type:Publication,
    Women as Authors of Randomized Controlled Trials of Minimally Invasive Surgery: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of 3 Decades of Trials Open PDF 
    (2021)
    Sayyid, Rashid K.
    ;
    Lokeshwar, Soum D.
    ;
    Luckenbaugh, Amy N.
    ;
    Hall, Mary E.
    ;
    Jones, Caitlin E.
    BACKGROUND: Female authorship opportunities have lagged behind those of their male counterparts, with gender disparities most prominent in surgical specialties. Our objective was to determine trends of female first, last, and first or last authorships across time and surgical specialties and whether female first or last authorship was associated with journal impact factor. STUDY DESIGN: A systematic review of EMBASE (OvidSP), MEDLINE (OvidSP), and Cochrane (Wiley) databases from inception to December 22, 2017 was performed to identify all randomized controlled trials evaluating minimally invasive surgery vs classical surgical techniques. The primary end point was female first, last, and first or last authorship, with gender determined via an online search strategy and verified via Genderize.io. Secondary end point was journal impact factor, recorded from Clarivate Analytics InCites. RESULTS: There were 9,321 articles identified and 489 met our inclusion/exclusion criteria. Sixty-eight (13.9%) first and 60 (12.3%) last female authors were identified. A positive linear trend for female first (R2 = 0.35, Cochran-Armitage test for trend, p < 0.001), last (R2 = 0.30, p < 0.001), and first or last authorships (R2 = 0.40, p < 0.001) over time was identified. This trend was observed across surgical specialties except for orthopaedics. The highest calculated percentages of female first, last, and first or last authorships by the year 2017 were seen in obstetrics and gynecology (33.8%, 32.0%, and 43.8%, respectively), all significantly lower than the corresponding percentage of the female obstetrics and gynecology workforce in 2017 (57.0%). Neither female first nor last authorship positions were associated with journal impact factor. CONCLUSIONS: A significant increase in female first and last authorship in randomized controlled trials of minimally invasive surgical techniques in the last 3 decades has been observed, but continued efforts to bridge this gender gap are sorely needed.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender Disparity in Surgical Research: An Analysis of Authorship in Randomized Controlled Trials Open PDF 
    (2024)
    Becherucci, G.
    ;
    De Cassai, A.
    ;
    Capelli, G.
    ;
    Ferrari, S.
    ;
    Govoni, I.
    Introduction: Despite increasing female representation in medical fields, women remain underrepresented in high-impact authorship positions. This study examines gender disparities in authorship of randomized controlled trials in general surgery journals over the past 20 y. Methods: Utilizing PubMed and the Journal Citation Reports (Clarivate, 2023), we identified 8810 randomized controlled trials from 117 surgery journals, filtering down to 5694 studies for final analysis. Gender identification was performed using Genderize.io. Results: Results indicate that women accounted for 26.4% of first authorships and 18.7% of last authorships. Logistic regression revealed that a male last author significantly increases the likelihood of a male first author (odds ratio 2.68; 95% confidence interval 2.18-3.32). Over time, there is a positive trend in female authorship, with high correlation coefficients for both first (Spearman's correlation coefficient 0.916, P < 0.005) and last (Spearman's correlation coefficient 0.878, P < 0.005) authors. Interestingly, journal quartiles did not significantly influence the gender of first authors. Conclusions: These findings suggest persistent gender inequity in surgical research authorship, influenced by mentorship dynamics. The study underscores the need for strategies to enhance female representation in academic leadership to foster a more equitable scholarly environment. Limitations include reliance on Genderize.io for gender determination and the focus on general surgery journals, which may omit relevant studies from other domains. Overall, this research highlights incremental progress toward gender equality in surgical academia, advocating for continued efforts to close the gender gap. © 2024 The Author(s)