ReviewContemporary clinical trials communications2023
Gender-gap in randomized clinical trials reporting mortality in the perioperative setting and critical care: 20 years behind the scenes.
Review in Contemporary clinical trials communications, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trends and predictors of reporting social determinants of health in shoulder surgery.JSES international · 2024Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Women researchers might experience obstacles in academic environments and might be underrepresented in the authorship of articles published in peer-reviewed journals. Material and Methods: This is a cross-sectional analysis of female-led RCTs describing all interventions reducing mortality in critically ill and perioperative patients from 1981 to December 31, 2020. We searched PubMed/MEDLINE and EMBASE with the keywords RCTs and mortality. The gender of the first author was extracted and descriptive analysis was performed including the year of publication, impact factor, country of the first author, and methodological aspects. Results: We analyzed 340 RCTs, of which 42 (12%) were led by female researchers. The presence of women increased from 8% (14/172) until 2010 up to 17% (28/168) in 2010 and beyond. The United States, the United Kingdom, and Brazil were the main countries of origin of female researchers. Women authors conducted mainly single-center and single-nation studies as compared to male authors. The median impact factor of the target journal was 6 (3-27) in women vs. 7 (3-28) in men, with a p-value of 0.67; Conclusion: In the last 40 years, only one out of eight RCTs had a woman as the first author but the presence of women increased up to 17% by 2010 and beyond. The impact factor of publication target journals was high and not different between genders.
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.