Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32432669›Full record

Trial reportJAMA surgery2020

Effects of Gender Bias and Stereotypes in Surgical Training: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Sara P Myers, Mohini Dasari, Joshua B Brown, Stephanie T Lumpkin, Matthew D Neal, Kaleab Z Abebe, Nicole Chaumont, Stephanie M Downs-Canner, Meghan R Flanagan, Kenneth K Lee and 1 more

Registry-linked trialOpen access · bronzeAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in JAMA surgery, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03623009 (The Effect of Gender-stigma Consciousness on General Surgery Trainees' Experiences and Skill Performance.), which is not on this map. Cited by 28 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
11.8field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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.

NCT03623009 nacompletednot on this map

The Effect of Gender-stigma Consciousness on General Surgery Trainees' Experiences and Skill Performance.

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of PittsburghRan2018 to 2019Enrolled85ConditionsGender IssuesArmsAn article meant to trigger certain psychosocial behaviors, a neutral article
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

28 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 62 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  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. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Misconceptions about women in leadership in academic medicine.Canadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie · 2023
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Sara P MyersDepartment of Surgery, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Mohini DasariDepartment of Surgery, University of Washington, Seattle.
Joshua B BrownDepartment of Surgery, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Stephanie T LumpkinDepartment of Surgery, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Medicine.
Matthew D NealDepartment of Surgery, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Kaleab Z AbebeDivision of General Internal Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Nicole ChaumontDepartment of Surgery, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Medicine.
Stephanie M Downs-CannerDepartment of Surgery, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Medicine.
Meghan R FlanaganDepartment of Surgery, University of Washington, Seattle.
Kenneth K LeeDepartment of Surgery, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Matthew R RosengartDepartment of Surgery, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
University of Pittsburgh · USUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill · USFred Hutch Cancer Center · USUniversity of Washington · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Factors contributing to underrepresentation of women in surgery are incompletely understood. Pro-male bias and stereotype threat appear to contribute to gender imbalance in surgery. Objectives: To evaluate the association between pro-male gender bias and career engagement and the effect of stereotype threat on skill performance among trainees in academic surgery. Design, Setting, and Participants: A 2-phase study with a double-blind, randomized clinical trial component was conducted in 3 academic general surgery training programs. Residents were recruited between August 1 and August 15, 2018, and the study was completed at the end of that academic year. In phase 1, surveys administered 5 to 6 months apart investigated the association of gender bias with career engagement. In phase 2, residents were randomized 1:1 using permuted-block design stratified by site, training level, and gender to receive either a trigger of or protection against stereotype threat. Immediately after the interventions, residents completed the Fundamentals of Laparoscopic Surgery (FLS) assessment followed by a final survey. A total of 131 general surgery residents were recruited; of these 96 individuals with academic career interests met eligibility criteria; 86 residents completed phase 1. Eighty-five residents were randomized in phase 2, and 4 residents in each arm were lost to follow-up. Intervention: Residents read abstracts that either reported that women had worse laparoscopic skill performance than men (trigger of stereotype threat [A]) or had no difference in performance (protection against stereotype threat [B]). Main Outcomes and Measures: Association between perception of pro-male gender bias and career engagement survey scores (phase 1) and stereotype threat intervention and FLS scores (phase 2) were the outcomes. Intention-to-treat analysis was conducted. Results: Seventy-seven residents (38 women [49.4%]) completed both phases of the study. The association between pro-male gender bias and career engagement differed by gender (interaction coefficient, -1.19; 95% CI, -1.90 to -0.49; P = .02); higher perception of bias was associated with higher engagement among men (coefficient, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.19-2.24; P = .04), but no significant association was observed among women (coefficient, -0.25; 95% CI, -1.59 to 1.08; P = .50). There was no evidence of a difference in FLS score between interventions (mean [SD], A: 395 [150] vs B: 367 [157]; P = .51). The response to stereotype threat activation was similar in men and women (interaction coefficient, 15.1; 95% CI, -124.5 to 154.7; P = .39). The association between stereotype threat activation and FLS score differed by gender across levels of susceptibility to stereotype threat (interaction coefficient, -35.3; 95% CI, -47.0 to -23.6; P = .006). Higher susceptibility to stereotype threat was associated with lower FLS scores among women who received a stereotype threat trigger (coefficient, -43.4; 95% CI, -48.0 to -38.9; P = .001). Conclusions and Relevance: Perception of pro-male bias and gender stereotypes may influence career engagement and skill performance, respectively, among surgical trainees. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03623009.

Indexed as

SexismStereotypingDouble-Blind MethodFemaleGeneral SurgeryHumansMale

Identifiers

PMID32432669
PMCPMC7240638
OpenAlexW3026432906

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.