ArticleCureus2023
Gender Disparities Among Academic Vitreoretinal Specialists in the United States With Regard to Scholarly Impact and Academic Rank.
Article in Cureus, 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinician and Patient Perspectives of Geographic Atrophy Age-Related Macular Degeneration in Spain: A Preliminary Exploratory Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Demographics and Productivity Trends Among Academically Affiliated Female Retina Specialists in the United States.Journal of vitreoretinal diseasesArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and objective While men outnumber women in the specialty of ophthalmology in general, the subspecialty of vitreoretinal surgery in particular has the highest percentage of men across all ophthalmic subspecialties. This study aimed to analyze the gender disparities regarding the publication productivity and academic rank of academic vitreoretinal specialists in the United States (US). Methods This cross-sectional study evaluated 116 ophthalmology residency programs in the US participating in the 2022 San Francisco Match. The academic vitreoretinal faculty from each ophthalmology residency program was included. The information on gender, academic rank, and publication activity in terms of the h-index were collected from institutional websites, the Scopus database, and the National Library of Medicine PubMed website. Results A total of 467 academic vitreoretinal specialists were identified. Among them, 345 (73.9%) were men, and 122 (26.1%) were women (p<0.001). When the academic ranks were analyzed, a higher number of men (43.8%) were found to hold the rank of full professor as compared to women. Furthermore, a higher number of women (47.5%) were found to hold the rank of assistant professor as compared to their male colleagues. Regarding the number of publications, in all academic rank categories, women had a significantly lower number of publications compared to men (p<0.001). Men also had a higher publication productivity or scholarly impact [h-index=15.2 ± 0.82 standard error of the mean (SEM)] compared to women (h-index=12.8 ± 0.99 SEM) (p=0.0004). Higher h-index correlated with higher academic rank, from assistant professor through full professor (p<0.001). Conclusion The field of vitreoretinal surgery has significantly fewer women compared to men, with women producing fewer publications and having less scholarly impact. H-index and total number of publications are also associated with a higher academic rank. Furthermore, full professors are more likely to be men, while assistant professors are more likely to be women. Future efforts should be aimed at reducing the gender disparity in vitreoretinal surgery.
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.