Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33831170›Full record

ArticleAmerican journal of epidemiology2021

Invited Commentary: Reckoning With Our Biases in Epidemiology.

Sandro Galea

Abstract readComment
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in American journal of epidemiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Sandro Galea

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Biases and in-group preferences limit opportunities for persons of all identities to flourish in science. Decisions made by those in charge of leading professional meetings about which presentations to feature prominently and by academic journal staff about which articles to publish reinforce these biases. The paper by Nobles et al. (Am J Epidemiol. 2021;190(9):1710-1720) showed that women are less likely to be selected to be symposium presenters in the field's pre-eminent scientific meeting than men. The scientific and moral arguments for promoting diversity of engagement by persons of all identities in the field are abundantly clear, calling for efforts to mitigate the effect of these in-group biases. I offer 3 suggestions for how we can achieve better diversity in our field: 1) increase our discussions of the importance of diversity and raise consciousness about the issue consistently; 2) ensure that only blinded, peer-reviewed presentations are advanced at professional meeting; and 3) publish only blinded, peer-reviewed papers in leading journals in the field. These steps-together with broader system-wide efforts to maximize diversity among trainees and faculty-can pave the way for any field to become welcoming to all, irrespective of any axes of identity.

Indexed as

FacultyPublishingBiasDissent and DisputesFemaleHumansMalebiasdiversityidentity

Identifiers

PMID33831170

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.