ReviewGynecologic oncology reports2023
Gynecologic oncology fellowship leadership trends by gender.
Review in Gynecologic oncology reports, 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Scholarly productivity during gynecologic oncology fellowship: A cross-sectional survey of graduates from 2020 to 2024.Gynecologic oncology reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Our objective was to examine the educational, research, and leadership trends among gynecologic oncology (GYO) fellowship program directors (PD) and how these vary by gender. PDs were identified using the Society of Gynecologic Oncology Fellowship Directory. Surveys were sent to PDs' emails to obtain information about demographics, education, and research background. Publicly available data and institutional biographies were used to supplement primary survey data for incomplete responses or survey non-responders. Scopus was used to determine the h-index and number of publications and citations for each PD. Parametric data were compared using unpaired two-tailed t-tests. Chi-square and Fisher's exact tests were performed for categorical data. The significance level was p < 0.05. Approximately one-half of PDs were female (50.8%). Female PDs had a younger mean age than male PDs (46.4 years vs 51.9 years, p = 0.0014). The average overall h-index was 22 (SD = 14.5) and the average number of publications was 71.2 (SD = 63.3). The average h-index was higher in male PDs than females (27.8 vs 16.3, p = 0.0012), as were the number of publications (97.3 vs 45.8, p = 0.0008). Differences exist among GYO PDs by gender. While research productivity may be reflective of age, gender-based equity in research time should be further explored.
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.