ArticleBlood advances2022
Gender and early-career faculty disparities in hematology and oncology board review lecture series.
Article in Blood advances, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Understanding the impact of social determinants of health in hematology: a scoping review of trends across journals and over time.Blood advances · 2026Article
- Power imbalances in tropical medicine journals: an analysis of editorial board representation.Tropical medicine and health · 2025Article
- Are we ignoring sex differences in haematological malignancies? A call for improved reporting.British journal of haematology · 2025Review
- Career development: A balance of opportunities and choices.Hematological oncology · 2024Article
- The American Society of Hematology Health Equity Compendium: examining health equity across the Blood journals.Blood advances · 2024Article
- Consensus recommendations on peripheral blood smear review: defining curricular standards and fellow competency.Blood advances · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Participation of women and early-career faculty in hematology and medical oncology board review lecture series has not been studied previously. We aimed to evaluate gender and early-career faculty disparities in hematology and medical oncology board review lecture series. Speakers at major hematology and/or oncology board review lecture series meetings in the United States were analyzed in this cross-sectional study during a 5-year period from the years 2017 through 2021. Data about the lecture topic, field, speaker's gender, years of experience, and the frequency at which the lecture was given by the speaker were collected. Of 386 speakers participating, 315 (81.6%) were ABIM (American Board of Internal Medicine)-certified. A total of 1,224 board review lectures were given in the studied period, of which 1,016 (83%) were given by an ABIM-certified speaker. Women constituted 37.7% of all speakers, with less than 50% representation in five out of six courses. Lectures discussing malignant hematology topics had the lowest proportion of women presenters (24.8%), followed by solid tumors (38.9%) and benign hematology lectures (44.1%). Faculty with more than 15 years since initial certification presented more than 50% of lectures. The median time from initial hematology or medical oncology certification to lecture presentation was 12.5 years and 14 years, respectively. A positive trend in the participation of women was found at all board review conferences across the studied period. Our data suggest that women and early-career faculty participation in hematology and oncology board review series is inadequate.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.