ArticleSurgical endoscopy2020
Is there a gender bias in the advancement to SAGES leadership?
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Progress and persistent gaps in organizational climate in SAGES: a 2017-2023 survey comparison.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- SAGES White Paper on the importance of diversity in surgical leadership: creating the fundamentals of leadership development (FLD) curriculum.Surgical endoscopy · 2024Article
- Article
- Gender distribution of speakers on panels at the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES) annual meeting.Surgical endoscopy · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe proportion of women in surgery has risen significantly yet there remains gender discrepancies in upper leadership positions in academia. Specialty societies play an important role in academic advancement but the progression of women in surgical societies has not been studied. The purpose of this study was to determine if there are gender differences in advancement within the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES) leadership.
methodsA retrospective audit of all SAGES committee members (CM) from 1992 to 2018 was performed. The overall membership gender distribution was available from 2010 to 2018. Leadership positions included Committee Chair/Co-chair, Board of Governors, and Executive Committee. Three phenomena were investigated: "pipeline," by determining the change in women CMs compared to overall membership over time; "sticky floors," by comparing advancement beyond CM by gender; "glass-ceiling," by analyzing the promotion trajectory and time to leadership positions between genders. Statistical analysis comparing trends over time was performed using Kendall-tau.
resultsThere were 1546 surgeons who served on at least one committee during the study period. Women represented 21% of CMs, 18% of chairs/co-chairs, 16% of board members and 14% of executives, with one woman President. The proportion of women CMs has significantly increased over time from 3% in 1992 to 27% in 2018 (p-trend < 0.001). A similar proportion of women and men advanced beyond CM (17% vs. 14%, p = 0.194), with no difference in time to advancement. From 2010 to 2018, the increase in the proportion of women CMs and board members outpaced that of overall women members (p < 0.05). Women executives surpassed overall women members in 2018 (29% vs. 19%). A similar proportion of men and women "skipped ranks" to reach the Board/Executive (37% vs. 25%, p = 0.307).
conclusionThe proportion of women in leadership positions within SAGES is higher than in the overall membership. There were no gender differences in the advancement of CMs to leadership positions. While these data are encouraging, SAGES should continue to foster the advancement of women surgeons.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31037338What 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.