Observational studyBMJ open ophthalmology2024
Research productivity and gender of research award recipients in international ophthalmology societies.
Observational study in BMJ open ophthalmology, 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Observational
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThe purpose of this study is to assess the research productivity and gender of award recipients of ophthalmology research awards in international societies.
methodsThis is a retrospective, observational study. The study population included award recipients of research awards from 36 ophthalmologic societies (listed on the International Council of Ophthalmology database) in 99 years (1922-2021). A gender-specific pronoun and a photograph of each award recipient were extracted from professional websites to assign their gender. Research productivity levels were retrieved from the Elsevier Scopus author database. The main outcome measures were gender distribution of award recipients per year, mean h-index per year, mean m-quotient per year, mean h-index by society, and mean m-quotient by society.
resultsOut of 2506 recipients for 122 awards, 1897 (75.7%) were men and 609 (24.3%) were women. The proportion of woman recipients increased from 0% in 1922 to 41.0% in 2021. Compared with 2000-2010 (19.8%, 109 of 550), women received a greater proportion of awards (48.4%, 459 of 949) in the last decade, from 2011 to 2021. Furthermore, men more often had greater h-index scores and m-quotient scores.
conclusionsWomen received awards (24.3%) at a lower rate than men (75.7%) while also exhibiting lower productivity, supporting the existence of a gender disparity. Our study found that women are under-represented in research awards, and further investigation into award selection processes and gender membership data is recommended.
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.