ArticleNature reviews. Cancer2019
Women in cancer research.
Article in Nature reviews. Cancer, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- A systematic analysis of the gender disparities in oncology journal editorial boards.Research integrity and peer review · 2026Article
- Gender gap-Gender-specific development in the field of obstetrics and gynecology in Germany in the last 20 years.Frontiers in medicine · 2023Article
- Article
- Tracing ovarian cancer research in Morocco: A bibliometric analysis.Gynecologic oncology reports · 2021Article
- Changing mindsets.Nature reviews. Cancer · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Gender inequality in science is a real issue, and without frank and open discussions leading to positive action it is likely to remain so. In February 2019, Nature Reviews Cancer was kindly invited to be part of a 'Women in Science Mentoring' panel discussion, which took place at the Lorne Cancer Conference in Victoria, Australia. Inspired by the scientific career paths and experiences of the women on the panel, we decided to share their stories with our readers in this Viewpoint article, along with their opinions on how men and women must equally take responsibility for supporting and empowering female scientists. To this end, we hope we might contribute in some small way to highlighting a few of the issues surrounding gender bias in cancer research, as well as science more generally, and show our commitment to ensuring gender diversity within the journal.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31417200What 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.