Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35891837›Full record

ArticleCureus2022

Female Representation in Academic Medicine in Pakistan: A 15-Year Overview.

Samina Ismail, Fiza Khan, Malika Hameed

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cureus, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. 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

3 authors.

Samina IsmailAnaesthesiology, Aga Khan University, Karachi, PAK.
Fiza KhanAnaesthesiology, Aga Khan University Hospital, Karachi, PAK.
Malika HameedAnaesthesiology, Aga Khan University Hospital, Karachi, PAK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo determine the proportion of female authors publishing in Pakistan and their representation in academic anesthesiology

main outcome measuresGender of the first and last authors was determined by (a) a general review of the author's first, middle, and last names, (b) an internet search of the author's name, and a review of photographs on their social media, or (c) an online search of the author's first name for typical gender assignment. The research field of the first author was noted to determine the contribution of different medical specialties. Article type and the number of citations were noted to determine the relationship with the gender of the author.

resultsAround 1549 papers were published by Pakistani authors, of which, 82.6% were original articles, 9.8% were editorials, 5.5% were CPAs, and 2.1% were reviews. Around 56.2% of the first authors and 70.9% of the last authors were males. Most article types had a majority of male first and last authors (<0.001). The median (interquartile range) citation rate was two (0-19), with no difference in citations between gender. Male-male author pairing remained the most common (45.6%). The majority of the papers published belonged to the field of medicine (27.2%) and surgery (21%), with only 3.1% contributed by anesthesiology (females: 41.3%; males: 58.6%).

conclusionFemale representation in academia in Pakistan is at par with developed countries. The academic contribution from anesthesiology remains low, which corresponds to a lower percentage of the anesthesia workforce in the country. There is a need for a national indexed journal of anesthesia to evaluate the true representation of female authors in the country.

Indexed as

academic contributionacademic medicineanaesthesiadeveloping countriesfemale authorsfemale researcherspakistani authorsscientific publications

Identifiers

PMID35891837
PMCPMC9306393

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.