ArticleBMC medical education2023
Gender bias in academic medicine: a resumé study.
Article in BMC medical education, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Is medical school culture conducive to women's academic success? a survey on faculty perceptions and experiences of gender equity.BMC medical education · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMinimising the effects of unconscious bias in selection for clinical academic training is essential to ensure that allocation of training posts is based on merit. We looked at the effect of anonymising applications to a training programme for junior doctors on the scores of the applications and on gender balance; and whether female candidates were more likely to seek gender-concordant mentors.
methodsApplications to the training programme were reviewed and scored independently by reviewers who received either an anonymised or named copy. Scores were compared using a paired t-test, and differences in scores compared by gender. The gender of named supervisors for male and female candidates was compared.
resultsScores of 101 applications were reviewed. When their identity was known, male candidates scored 1.72% higher and female candidates scored 0.74% higher, but these findings were not statistically significant (p value = 0.279 and 0.579). Following introduction of anonymisation, the proportion of successful female candidates increased from 27 to 46%. Female candidates were more likely to name a female supervisor compared to male (41% vs. 25% of supervisors).
conclusionsAnonymising applications did not significantly change scores, although gender balance improved. Gender-concordant mentoring initiatives should consider effects on mentors as well as mentees.
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.