Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33442813›Full record

ArticleNeurocritical care2021

The Neurocritical Care Society Gender Parity Analysis in Grants and Recognition Awards.

Shraddha Mainali, Asma M Moheet, Victoria A McCredie, Sarah Livesay, Jody Manners, Denise H Rhoney, Susanne Muehlschlegel

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Neurocritical care, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

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

  1. The gender gap in academic anesthesiology and critical care medicine: a systematic review.Canadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Gender of Award Recipients in Major Ophthalmology Societies.American journal of ophthalmology · 2021
    Observational
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Shraddha MainaliDepartment of Neurology, Division of Stroke and Neurocritical Care, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA. Shraddha.mainali@osumc.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9495-3843
Asma M MoheetNeurocritical Care, OhioHealth Riverside Methodist Hospital, Columbus, OH, USA.
Victoria A McCredieInterdepartmental Division of Critical Care Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Sarah LivesayCollege of Nursing, Rush University, Chicago, IL, USA.
Jody MannersDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Denise H RhoneyDivision of Practice Advancement and Clinical Education, UNC Eshelman School of Pharmacy, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Susanne MuehlschlegelDepartment of Neurology, Anesthesia/Critical Care and Surgery, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, MA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSeveral recent studies across the field of medicine have indicated gender disparity in the reception of prestigious awards and research grants, placing women in medicine at a distinct disadvantage. Gender disparity has been observed in neurology, critical care medicine and within various professional societies. In this study, we have examined the longitudinal trends of gender parity in awards and grants within the Neurocritical Care Society (NCS).

methodsA retrospective analysis was conducted of all available data longitudinally from 2004, when NCS first granted awards through 2019. We used self-identified gender in the membership roster to record gender for each individual. For individuals without recorded gender, we used a previously validated double verification method using a systematic web-based search. We collected data on six awards distributed by the NCS and divided these awards into two main categories: (1) scientific category: (a) Christine Wijman Young Investigator Award; (b) Best Scientific Abstract Award; (c) Fellowship Grant; (d) INCLINE Grant; and (2) non-scientific category: (a) Travel Grant; and (b) Presidential Citation. Available data were analyzed to evaluate longitudinal trends in awards using descriptive statistics and simple or multiple linear regression analyses, as appropriate.

resultsA total of 445 awards were granted between the years 2004 and 2019. Thirty-six awards were in the scientific category, while 409 awards were in the non-scientific category. Only 8% of women received NCS awards in the scientific awards category, whereas 44% of women received an award in the non-scientific category. Most notable in the scientific category are the Best Scientific Abstract Award and the Fellowship Grant, in which no woman has ever received an award to date, compared to 18 men between both awards. In contrast, women are well represented in the non-scientific awards category with an average of 5% increase per year in the number of women awardees.

conclusionsOur data reveal gender disparity, mainly for scientific or research awards. Prompt evaluation of the cause and further actions to address gender disparity in NCS grants and recognition awards is needed to establish gender equity in this area.

Indexed as

Awards and PrizesSocieties, MedicalFemaleHumansMaleRetrospective StudiesUnited StatesDisparity in awardsDisparity in grantsGender discriminationGender gapGender parityNeurocritical careWomen in medicine

Identifiers

PMID33442813

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.