Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35179582›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2022

Addressing Gender-Based Disparities in Earning Potential in Academic Medicine.

Eva Catenaccio, Jonathan M Rochlin, Harold K Simon

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
39citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. The Latina physician wage chasm: a secondary analysis of the American Community Survey.Academic medicine : journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges · 2026
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Association Between Specialty-Specific Physician Salaries and Percentage of Women in the Workforce.Academic medicine : journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges · 2025
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Academic Orthopaedic Surgeon Financial Compensation in the United States: Trends and Distribution.Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Global research & reviews · 2025
    Article
  15. Perspectives and needs of neonatology division directors regarding gender equity.Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2025
    Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Eva CatenaccioDivision of Pediatric Neurology, Department of Pediatrics, The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Jonathan M RochlinDivision of Pediatric Emergency Medicine, Department of Emergency Medicine, Maimonides Medical Center, Brooklyn, New York.
Harold K SimonDepartment of Pediatrics, Emory University School of Medicine, Children's Healthcare of Atlanta, Atlanta, Georgia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Gender-based disparities in compensation in academic medicine are recognized, but their estimated impacts on early career earning potential and strategies to mitigate them have not been well studied. Objectives: To compare earning potential between female and male academic physicians in the first 10 years of posttraining employment and to evaluate the estimated impact of promotion timing, starting salary, and salary growth rate on earning potential. Design, Setting, and Participants: Using publicly available mean debt and compensation data for full-time employed academic physicians in the US from 2019 to 2020, starting salary, salary in year 10 of employment, annual salary growth rate, and overall earning potential in the first 10 years of employment were estimated for each gender by subspecialty. The estimated impacts of promotion timing and potential interventions, including equalizing starting salaries and annual salary growth rates, were modeled. Data analysis was performed from March to May 2021. Exposures: Gender and subspecialty. Main Outcomes and Measures: Starting salary, annual salary growth rate, year-10 salary, and earning potential in first 10 years of employment. Results: This cross-sectional study included compensation data from 24 593 female and 29 886 male academic physicians across 45 subspecialties. Women had lower starting salaries in 42 of 45 subspecialties (93%), year-10 salaries in 43 of 45 subspecialties (96%), mean annual salary growth rates in 22 of 45 subspecialties (49%), and earning potential in 43 of 45 subspecialties (96%) (median [IQR], $214 440 [$130 423-$384 954], or 10%, less). A 1-year delay in promotion from assistant to associate professor reduced women's earning potential by a median (IQR) of $26 042 ($19 672-$35 671), but failure to be promoted at all reduced it by a median (IQR) of $218 724 ($176 317-$284 466). Equalizing starting salaries could increase women's earning potential by a median (IQR) of $250 075 ($161 299-$381 799) in the subspecialties for which starting salaries for women were lower than those for men. Equalizing annual salary growth rates could increase women's earning potential by a median (IQR) of $53 661 ($24 258-$102 892) in the subspecialties for which mean annual salary growth rates were lower for women than for men. Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this study suggest that gender-based disparities in starting salary and early career earning potential are pervasive in academic medicine in the US. Equalizing starting salaries would address the majority of the differences in earning potential.

Indexed as

Cross-Sectional StudiesFaculty, MedicalFemaleHumansMalePhysiciansSalaries and Fringe BenefitsSex DistributionSexism

Identifiers

PMID35179582
PMCPMC8857688

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.