Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30993611›Full record

SynthesisJournal of general internal medicine2019

Gender Bias in Resident Assessment in Graduate Medical Education: Review of the Literature.

Robin Klein, Katherine A Julian, Erin D Snyder, Jennifer Koch, Nneka N Ufere, Anna Volerman, Ann E Vandenberg, Sarah Schaeffer, Kerri Palamara, From the Gender Equity in Medicine (GEM) workgroup

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of general internal medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 74 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
74citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

74 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

14 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Robin KleinDepartment of Medicine, Division of General Internal Medicine and Geriatrics, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA. rklein3@emory.edu.
Katherine A JulianDivision of General Internal Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Erin D SnyderDepartment of Medicine, Division of General Internal Medicine, University of Alabama Birmingham School of Medicine, Birmingham, AL, USA.
Jennifer KochDepartment of Medicine, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY, USA.
Nneka N UfereDepartment of Medicine, Division of Gastroenterology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.
Anna VolermanDepartment of Medicine, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA.
Ann E VandenbergDepartment of Medicine, Division of General Internal Medicine and Geriatrics, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Sarah SchaefferDepartment of Medicine, Division of Hospital Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Kerri PalamaraDepartment of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.
From the Gender Equity in Medicine (GEM) workgroup

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCompetency-based medical education relies on meaningful resident assessment. Implicit gender bias represents a potential threat to the integrity of resident assessment. We sought to examine the available evidence of the potential for and impact of gender bias in resident assessment in graduate medical education.

methodsA systematic literature review was performed to evaluate the presence and influence of gender bias on resident assessment. We searched Medline and Embase databases to capture relevant articles using a tiered strategy. Review was conducted by two independent, blinded reviewers. We included studies with primary objective of examining the impact of gender on resident assessment in graduate medical education in the USA or Canada published from 1998 to 2018.

resultsNine studies examined the existence and influence of gender bias in resident assessment and data included rating scores and qualitative comments. Heterogeneity in tools, outcome measures, and methodologic approach precluded meta-analysis. Five of the nine studies reported a difference in outcomes attributed to gender including gender-based differences in traits ascribed to residents, consistency of feedback, and performance measures.

conclusionOur review suggests that gender bias poses a potential threat to the integrity of resident assessment in graduate medical education. Future study is warranted to understand how gender bias manifests in resident assessment, impact on learners and approaches to mitigate this bias.

Indexed as

Competency-Based EducationEducational MeasurementEducation, Medical, GraduateFemaleHumansInternship and ResidencyMaleSexismassessmentevaluationgendergender biasgraduate medical educationimplicit biaspostgraduate medical educationresidency training

Identifiers

PMID30993611
PMCPMC6502889

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.