Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35293613›Full record

SynthesisThe Australian & New Zealand journal of obstetrics & gynaecology2022

Gender bias in the medical education of obstetrician-gynaecologists in the United States: A systematic review.

Brian T Nguyen, Laer H Streeter, Ravali A Reddy, Christopher R Douglas

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Australian & New Zealand journal of obstetrics & gynaecology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Patient complaints differ for male and female obstetrician-gynecologists: an exploration of 20 years of complaints data in Alberta, Canada.International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care · 2025
    Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Gender bias or patient preference for female practitioners in Obs/Gyn care.The Australian & New Zealand journal of obstetrics & gynaecology · 2022
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Brian T NguyenUniversity of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-0282-3241
Laer H StreeterDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology at Boston Medical Center, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Ravali A ReddyDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology at the Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, USA.
Christopher R DouglasLos Angeles Medical Center, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at the University of California, Los Angeles, California, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe number of men entering obstetrics and gynaecology (Ob/Gyn) residencies and general Ob/Gyn practice is decreasing. Gender biases against their participation may affect career decisions.

objectiveThis systematic review examines: (i) female patients' gender preferences and perceptions of men as Ob/Gyns and/or medical students; and (ii) the influence of gender on students' education and career decisions. SEARCH STRATEGY: We identified relevant research via PubMed using variations of three concepts in combination: Ob/Gyn care, gender bias/preference, and medical education or career. We conducted the initial review in 2018 and repeated the search in March 2021, adding additional references via citation review of included research. SELECTION CRITERIA: We restricted the review to original research from the United States between 2000-2021. DATA COLLECTION: Fifteen studies met inclusion criteria, categorised into three groups: (i) patient's gender preference for Ob/Gyns; (ii) patient's gender preference for medical students during the Ob/Gyn clerkship; and (iii) influence of gender bias on Ob/Gyn career decisions. MAIN

resultsPatients prioritised their physician's care attributes (eg technical skill, compassion, experience) over gender when choosing Ob/Gyns; however, provider gender was prioritised for medical students. Male medical students more commonly reported exclusion from clinical opportunities, although objective clinical exposure was like that of female counterparts. Despite perceived gender bias, male medical students reported increased Ob/Gyn interest post-clerkship; interest did not translate into residency applications. These findings are limited by study quality and heterogeneity.

conclusionsReal and perceived gender bias among female patients and male medical students in Ob/Gyn may underlie declining numbers of men entering the field.

Indexed as

GynecologyInternship and ResidencyObstetricsStudents, MedicalFemaleHumansMalePregnancySexismUnited Statescareer choiceclerkshipgender biasmedical educationobstetrics & gynaecology

Identifiers

PMID35293613
PMCPMC9310565

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.