PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Settings

Geographical Area: search.filters.geographical.CanadaSubject: search.filters.subject.Women

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Item type:Publication,
    Female Authorship in Radiology: Trends in the Past Decade in CARJ Open PDF 
    (2021)
    Li, N.
    ;
    Alabousi, M.
    ;
    Patlas, M.N.
    Purpose: To identify trends in female authorship in the Canadian Association of Radiologists Journal (CARJ) from 2010 to 2019. Methods: We retrieved papers published in the CARJ over a 10-year period, and retrospectively reviewed 602 articles. All articles except editorials and advertisements were included. We categorized the names of the first and last position authors as female or male and excluded articles that had at least one author of which gender was not known. We compared the trends in the first and last position authors of the articles from 2010 to 2019. For statistical analysis, logistic regression was performed with reported odds ratios (ORs), and a P value of <.05 was defined as statistically significant. Results: Five hundred thirteen articles met inclusion criteria. Among them, 23 articles with a single author were classified as having only a first author. 39.8% (204/513) of first authors were female and 26.9% (132/490) of last authors were female. There has been an overall temporal increase in the odds of both the first and last author being female in CARJ publications (OR: 1.11, P =.034). Similarly, the odds a CARJ publication’s first author being female increased over time (OR: 1.07, P =.033). Female last author did not predict female first author (OR: 1.48, P =.056). There was no association identified between female last author and year of publication (OR: 1.04, P =.225). Conclusion: There has been an overall increase in engagement of female authorship in CARJ. © The Author(s) 2020.
  • Item type:Publication,
    The Persistence of Sex Bias in High-Impact Clinical Research Open PDF 
    (2022)
    Barlek, Mark H.
    ;
    Rouan, Jessica R.
    ;
    Wyatt, Thomas G.
    ;
    Helenowski, Irene
    ;
    Kibbe, Melina R.
    INTRODUCTION: Sex bias is present in clinical research resulting in disparities in the treatment of women. Our objective was to identify the prevalence of sex inclusiveness of participants in human clinical trials after the passage of National Institutes of Health (NIH) and United States Congress policies in 2015 and 2016 to increase female enrollment in clinical research. METHODS: We performed an observational analysis of data from registered clinical trials published in three high-impact biomedical journals from January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2019. RESULTS: One thousand four hundred and forty two manuscripts with 4,765,783 human subjects were included for analysis. Significantly more males (56%) than females (44%) were included in all three journals (P < 0.0001). Sex matching ≥ 80% was found in 24.6% of publications. Industry funded 43.7% of all studies enrolling significantly more males than females (60.8% versus 39.2%, P < 0.0001). NIH funded 10.2% of studies enrolling significantly more females than males (52.7% versus 47.3%, P < 0.0001). North America and Europe contributed 82.6% of the studies with each enrolling significantly more males than females (P < 0.0001). The United States was the country contributing the most studies (36.1%), enrolling significantly more males than females (55.5% versus 45.5%, P < 0.0001). Cardiovascular disease was the subject area of the most manuscripts among medical specialties (19%), enrolling significantly more males than females (64.9% versus 35.1%, P < 0.0001). Studies analyzed by clinical trial phase, type, trial, and allocation enrolled significantly more males than females (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Sex bias remains prevalent in human clinical research trials. Improvements have been made in NIH-funded clinical trials; however, this constitutes a small percentage of overall studies.