ArticleAnnals of surgical oncology2022
Data-Driven Respectful Discourse in the Society of Surgical Oncology.
Article in Annals of surgical oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWe previously reported that professional forms of address in speaker introductions were inconsistently used at the Society of Surgical Oncology (SSO) 2018 and 2019 annual meetings, suggesting unconscious bias in speaker introductions. We sought to better understand how speakers would like to be introduced, and if guidelines could improve consistency in speaker introductions.
methodsSSO 2021 abstract submitters received a survey regarding demographics and preferred form of address at the meeting. Respectful discourse guidelines were developed and distributed to meeting moderators. Speaker introductions were reviewed for the 2021 SSO annual meeting and were compared with the 2018 and 2019 meetings.
resultsThe survey response rate was 183/347 (53%) abstract submitters, most of whom (143/183, 78%) indicated preference for a professional form of address (Doctor/Professor) during speaker introductions, which was significantly greater than those who were introduced with a professional form of address during the 2018 and 2019 meetings (351/499, 70%; Chi-square = 4.08, p = 0.043). There was no difference in speaker introduction preference based on gender or race/ethnic identification. Respectful discourse guidelines were developed and distributed to meeting moderators. During the 2021 SSO annual meeting, professional forms of address were used for 104 (84%) speakers, significantly greater than during the 2018 and 2019 meetings (Chi-square = 9.23, p = 0.002).
conclusionsMore survey respondents preferred speaker introductions with a professional form of address than were used in prior meetings. This preference was similar across all demographic groups evaluated. Professional addresses during speaker introductions increased significantly after the distribution of guidelines encouraging consistency to decrease unconscious bias and promote an inclusive environment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
34564772What 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.