ArticlePloS one2015
An International Survey on Taking Up a Career in Cardiovascular Research: Opportunities and Biases toward Would-Be Physician-Scientists.
Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Reasons and resolutions for gender inequality among cardiologists and cardiology trainees.The British journal of cardiology · 2023Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCardiovascular research is the main shaper of clinical evidence underpinning decision making, with its cyclic progression of junior researchers to mature faculty members. Despite efforts at improving cardiovascular research training, several unmet needs persist. We aimed to appraise current perceptions on cardiovascular research training with an international survey. METHODS AND
resultsWe administered a 20-closed-question survey to mentors and mentees belonging to different international institutions. A total of 247 (12%) surveys were available (out of 2,000 invitations). Overall, mentees and mentors were reasonably satisfied with the educational and research resources. Significant differences were found analyzing results according to gender, geographic area, training and full-time researcher status. Specifically, women proved significantly less satisfied than men, disclosed access to fewer resources and less support from mentors (all P<0.05). People working in institutions not located in North America or Northern/Central Europe were significantly less satisfied and disclosed much less support (both P<0.05). Those in training reported limited opportunities for collaboration (P = 0.009), and non-full-time researchers disclosed more limited access to tutors and formal grant writing training (both P<0.05).
conclusionsSeveral potential biases appear to be present in the way training in cardiovascular research is provided worldwide, including one against women. If confirmed, these data require proactive measures to decrease discriminations and improve the cardiovascular research training quality.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.