PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Settings

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

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 4 of 4
  • Item type:Publication,
    Is there a gender gap in Portuguese cardiology research? A review of data from the Portuguese Journal of Cardiology Open PDF 
    (2021)
    Timóteo, A.T.
    A gender gap is apparent in several professional areas, including in medicine and particularly in the cardiovascular field. We present a brief review of the topic and we analyze data from the Portuguese Journal of Cardiology regarding female authorship. © 2020
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender inequalities in the dental science: An analysis of high impact publications Open PDF 
    (2021)
    Sartori, L.R.M.
    ;
    Henzel, L.T.
    ;
    de Queiroz, A.B.L.
    ;
    Ramos, E.C.
    ;
    de Oliveira, L.J.C.
    Objective: To assess the participation of women in publications of dental journals with a high impact factor. Methods: Articles published in 2016, 2011, and 2006 in 10 dental journals chosen for their highest impact factors in each dental fields were included in this research. Articles-related variables collected included the country of origin of each author, the type of study, and gender of the researchers. Gender was examined through PubMed, Scopus, ResearchGate, and respective affiliated institutions. Furthermore, a website designed to discover the gender of names was used when the previous alternatives were not conclusive. Forward stepwise Poisson regression models were used for data analysis. Results: A total of 3365 studies were included in the first authorship analysis and 3398 in analysis related to last authorship. The prevalence of women as first authors was 37.2% (confidence interval (CI) 95% 34.5–37.5) and as last authors was 22.6% (CI 95% 21.3–23.9). Having a woman as the last author increased the presence of women in the first author position in scientific dental articles by 16% (prevalence ratio = 1.16, CI 95% [1.04–1.29]). The year of publication, journal, and region of the author were associated with an increase in the prevalence of women as last authors. From 2006 to 2016, the prevalence of women as last authors increased by 61%. Despite these trends, women were still underrepresented in science in the evaluated period. Conclusions: There are meaningful gender inequalities in publications of scientific dental papers. Encouraging women to lead research groups can reduce the inequities observed in the present study. © 2021 American Dental Education Association
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender disparities in coronavirus disease 2019 clinical trial leadership Open PDF 
    (2021)
    Cevik, Muge
    ;
    Haque, Syed Arefinul
    ;
    Manne-Goehler, Jennifer
    ;
    Kuppalli, Krutika
    ;
    Sax, Paul E.
    OBJECTIVES: To compare the gender distribution of clinical trial leadership in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) clinical trials. METHODS: We searched https://clinicaltrials.gov/ and retrieved all clinical trials on COVID-19 from 1 January 2020 to 26 June 2020. As a comparator group, we have chosen two fields that are not related to emerging infections and infectious diseases: and considered not directly affected by the pandemic: breast cancer and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and included studies within the aforementioned study period as well as those registered in the preceding year (pre-study period: 1 January 2019 to 31 December 2019). Gender of the investigator was predicted using the genderize.io application programming interface. The repository of the data sets used to collect and analyse the data are available at https://osf.io/k2r57/. RESULTS: Only 27.8% (430/1548) of principal investigators among COVID-19-related studies were women, which is significantly different compared with 54.9% (156/284) and 42.1% (56/133) for breast cancer (p < 0.005) and T2DM (p < 0.005) trials over the same period, respectively. During the pre-study period, the proportion of principal investigators who were predicted to be women were 49.7% (245/493) and 44.4% (148/333) for breast cancer and T2DM trials, respectively, and the difference was not statistically significant when compared with results from the study period (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: We demonstrate that less than one-third of COVID-19-related clinical trials are led by women, half the proportion observed in non-COVID-19 trials over the same period, which remained similar to the pre-study period. These gender disparities during the pandemic may not only indicate a lack of female leadership in international clinical trials and involvement in new projects but also reveal imbalances in women's access to research activities and funding during health emergencies.
  • 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.