ArticleThe Journal of surgical research2024
The Gender Gap in Surgical Literature: Are We Making Progress?
Article in The Journal of surgical research, 2024. 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.
- Authorship asymmetry at the Women in Thoracic Surgery Inaugural Annual Conference: Gender pairings and senior status disparity.JTCVS open · 2026Article
- Gender Disparities in Citations and Altmetric Attention Score in Oncology.JCO oncology practice · 2026Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
introductionThe percentage of women in surgical leadership roles is not commensurate with percent of women in field of surgery. Citation indexes are used as proxy for scholarly impact and may serve as an indicator of women's progress in academic surgery. We aimed to evaluate gender disparities in authorship of surgery manuscripts in high-impact journals.
methodsIn this bibliometric analysis of original research articles from four high-impact surgical journals from 2008 to 2010 (period A) and 2018-2020 (period B), the gender of primary and senior authors was assigned by Genderize.io. Number of citations per article was identified via Web of Science. Number of citations by gender of authors was compared across time periods.
resultsOf the 3575 articles (Period A = 1915; Period B = 1660), 962 (26.9%) had women as primary authors and 590 (17.2%) as senior authors. Over time, significant increases in women primary and senior authorship were noted from 22.8% to 31.7% (P < 0.001) and 13.9% (254/11,915) to 21% (336/1660), respectively (P < 0.001). Articles written with women primary authors had fewer median (interquartile range) citations than those by men as primary author in period A (39 [17-69.5] versus 42 [20.0-84.0]; P = 0.005). Gender parity was noted in period B (9 [4-19] versus 9 [4-20] citations; P = 0.307). In period A, articles written by women as both primary and senior authors had approximately 25% fewer median citations compared with those by men (34 [17-62] versus 44 [21-86]); P < 0.011), and this reached parity in period B (9 [4-20] versus 9 [4-21]); P < 0.658).
conclusionsOverall, gender authorship and citations parity are improving in high-impact surgery journals.
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.