SynthesisThe American surgeon2023
Gender Distribution & Rank of Authorship in Surgical Literature.
Synthesis in The American surgeon, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It carries an expression of concern. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Female Representation in Ophthalmic Oncology and Pathology: An Analysis of Scholarship and Leadership.Ocular oncology and pathology · 2025Article
- Disparities of women's authorship in Colombia: A cross-sectional analysis.PLOS global public health · 2025Article
- The Gender Gap in Surgical Literature: Are We Making Progress?The Journal of surgical research · 2024Article
- Equity in scientific publishing: 2022 results from Research and Practice in Thrombosis and Haemostasis.Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
- Expression of concern
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAuthorship of surgical literature is important for the career advancement of surgeons, and gender disparities in authorship may hinder the representation and leadership of women within academic surgery. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the gender distribution of first, senior, and overall authorship in peer-reviewed surgical journal studies across all surgical specialties to determine if disparities exist.
methodsPubMed, EMBASE, and Google Scholar databases were searched for studies investigating the gender distribution of authorship of surgical literature published before December 10th, 2021. Meta-analysis was performed and Cohen's Q test for heterogenous effects was used to determine whether random or fixed-effects models were appropriate.
resultsFifteen studies investigating gender distribution of authorship met inclusion, which included a total of 136,627 pooled studies. The meta-analysis demonstrated the meta-proportion of first authorship for women to be 20.6% (95% CI: 13.9, 28.2), the meta-proportion of senior authorship for women to be 11.9% (95% CI: 6.6, 18.5), and the meta-proportion of overall authorship for women to be 23% (95% CI: 16.2, 30.7). In addition, the proportion of senior authorship for women was found to be significantly lower than the proportion of overall authorship for women (11.9% versus 23.0%, P = .0106).
conclusionThere is a significantly smaller proportion of women who are first, senior, and overall authors in surgical literature compared to their colleagues who are men. Sustainable and effective solutions aimed at improving the representation of women surgeons in surgical research and research leadership are necessary.
Indexed as
Identifiers
35976619What 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.