Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34728447›Full record

SynthesisBMJ open2021

Gender differences in faculty rank among academic physicians: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Ben Li, Jean Jacob-Brassard, Fahima Dossa, Konrad Salata, Teruko Kishibe, Elisa Greco, Nancy N Baxter, Mohammed Al-Omran

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 42 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
42citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Gender Differences in National Institutes of Health Funding for Family Medicine Faculty.Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine : JABFM · 2026
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Observational
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Observational
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

8 authors.

Ben LiDepartment of Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-7191-1034
Jean Jacob-BrassardDepartment of Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Fahima DossaDepartment of Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-4670-7445
Konrad SalataDepartment of Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Teruko KishibeHealth Sciences Library, St. Michael's Hospital, Unity Health Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Elisa GrecoDepartment of Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Nancy N BaxterDepartment of Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Mohammed Al-OmranDepartment of Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada mohammed.al-omran@unityhealth.to.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveMany studies have analysed gender bias in academic medicine; however, no comprehensive synthesis of the literature has been performed. We conducted a pooled analysis of the difference in the proportion of men versus women with full professorship among academic physicians.

designSystematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Education Resources Information Center and PsycINFO were searched from inception to 3 July 2020. STUDY SELECTION: All original studies reporting faculty rank stratified by gender worldwide were included. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Study screening, data extraction and quality assessment were performed by two independent reviewers, with a third author resolving discrepancies. Meta-analysis was conducted using random-effects models.

resultsOur search yielded 5897 articles. 218 studies were included with 991 207 academic physician data points. Men were 2.77 times more likely to be full professors (182 271/643 790 men vs 30 349/251 501 women, OR 2.77, 95% CI 2.57 to 2.98). Although men practised for longer (median 18 vs 12 years, p<0.00002), the gender gap remained after pooling seven studies that adjusted for factors including time in practice, specialty, publications, h-index, additional PhD and institution (adjusted OR 1.83, 95% CI 1.04 to 3.20). Meta-regression by data collection year demonstrated improvement over time (p=0.0011); however, subgroup analysis showed that gender disparities remain significant in the 2010-2020 decade (OR 2.63, 95% CI 2.48 to 2.80). The gender gap was present across all specialties and both within and outside of North America. Men published more papers (mean difference 17.2, 95% CI 14.7 to 19.7), earned higher salaries (mean difference $33 256, 95% CI $25 969 to $40 542) and were more likely to be departmental chairs (OR 2.61, 95% CI 2.19 to 3.12).

conclusionsGender inequity in academic medicine exists across all specialties, geographical regions and multiple measures of success, including academic rank, publications, salary and leadership. Men are more likely than women to be full professors after controlling for experience, academic productivity and specialty. Although there has been some improvement over time, the gender disparity in faculty rank persists. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020197414.

Indexed as

Faculty, MedicalPhysiciansFemaleHumansMaleSalaries and Fringe BenefitsSex FactorsSexismeducation & training (see medical education & training)general medicine (see internal medicine)health policyhuman resource managementquality in healthcare

Identifiers

PMID34728447
PMCPMC8565568

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.