SynthesisJAMA network open2021
Sex Differences in Academic Productivity Across Academic Ranks and Specialties in Academic Medicine: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
Synthesis in JAMA network open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
38 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Breaking Barriers: Advancing Gender Equity in Geriatric Medicine. Results of an International Survey.Journal of general internal medicine · 2026Article
- Bibliometric productivity of academic emergency radiology faculty in the United States: Current status.Emergency radiology · 2026Article
- Article
- Article
- Collaborative relationships, disciplinary and global culture, social identity and scientific status shape how scholars cite prior work.Communications psychology · 2026Article
- Review
- Persistent gender disparities in research productivity among U.S. reproductive endocrinologists: a cross-sectional analysis.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2026Article
- Individual and institutional factors linked to high research productivity among physicians in the Arab Gulf region: implications for healthcare policy.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Gender Differences in National Institutes of Health Funding for Family Medicine Faculty.Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine : JABFM · 2026Article
- Gender disparities in the association between marital status and intention to leave research careers among medical researchers.Environmental health and preventive medicine · 2026Article
- Article
- Assessment of H-index and research impact amongst academic medical oncologists in Canada.Frontiers in research metrics and analytics · 2026Article
- The Impact of Fellowship Training on Peer-Reviewed Publication Productivity in Academic Anesthesiologists as Evaluated by the h-Index.Advances in cancer education and quality improvement · 2025Article
- Perspectives and needs of neonatology division directors regarding gender equity.Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2025Review
- Can State Family Support Policies Level the Playing Field for Early-Career Women in Plastic Surgery? An Analysis of Web-Scraped Data.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2025Article
- When her scalpels get stuck on the sticky floors: a qualitative study based on the experiences of female surgical faculty members in Korea.Annals of surgical treatment and research · 2025Article
- Sticky Floor, Broken Ladder, and Glass Ceiling in Internal Medicine Academic Ranking, Leadership, and Research Productivity.Journal of general internal medicine · 2025Article
- Principal investigator gender and clinical trial success: analysis of over 3000 obstetrics and gynecology trials.AJOG global reports · 2025Article
- A Cross-Sectional Analysis of Speaker Representation: Intentionality meets Intersectionality in Academic Global Surgery.Annals of global health · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Importance: Despite equal numbers of men and women entering medical school, women are underrepresented in the upper echelons of academic medicine and receive less compensation and research funding. Citation-related publication productivity metrics, such as the h-index, are increasingly used for hiring, salary, grants, retention, promotion, and tenure decisions. Exploring sex differences in these metrics across academic medicine provides deeper insight into why differences are observed in career outcomes. Objective: To systematically examine the available literature on sex differences in h-index of academic faculty physicians across all medical specialties and all levels of academic rank. Data Sources: Medical literature with the term h-index found in PubMed and published between January 1, 2009, and December 31, 2018, was used. Study Selection: A PICOS (Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcomes), PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses), and MOOSE (Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology) selection protocol was used to find observational studies that published h-indexes for faculty physicians that were stratified by sex. Studies were excluded if they were review articles, retracted, or unavailable online. Ultimately, 14 of 786 studies (1.78%) met the inclusion criteria. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Data from 9 studies across 16 specialties were examined using weighted random-effects meta-analyses. Five studies were excluded because of overlapping specialties with another study or because they were missing appropriate statistics for the meta-analysis. Four of these studies were included in qualitative synthesis to bring the total to 13 studies. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary study outcome was the h-index. Results: The meta-analysis included 10 665 North American unique academic physicians across 9 different studies from the years 2009 to 2018. Of the 10 665 physicians, 2655 (24.89%) were women. Summary effect sizes for mean h-indexes of men and women and mean h-index difference between men and women were determined for all faculty physicians and at each academic rank. Overall, female faculty had lower h-indexes than male faculty (mean difference, -4.09; 95% CI, -5.44 to -2.73; P < .001). When adjusting for academic rank, female faculty still had lower h-indexes than male faculty at the ranks of assistant professor (mean difference, -1.3; 95% CI, -1.90 to -0.72; P < .001), associate professor (mean difference, -2.09; 95% CI, -3.40 to -0.78; P = .002), and professor (mean difference, -3.41; 95% CI, -6.24 to -0.58; P = .02). Conclusions and Relevance: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, women had lower h-indexes than men across most specialties and at all academic ranks, but it is unclear why these differences exist. These findings suggest that future investigation should be conducted regarding the causes of lower h-indexes in women and that interventions should be developed to provide a more equitable environment for all physicians regardless of sex.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.