ArticleInvestigative and clinical urology2024
Assessment of the gender gap in urology industry payments: An Open Payments Program data analysis.
Article in Investigative and clinical urology, 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.
- Re-examining equity in urology Evaluating the emergence of unintended bias against male clinicians and academics.Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada · 2026Review
- Exploring the multifaceted influencers on intrinsic capacity among community-dwelling older adults: a scoping review.BMC geriatrics · 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThe Open Payments Program (OPP), established in 2013 under the Sunshine Act, mandated medical device and pharmaceutical manufacturers to submit records of financial incentives given to physicians for public availability. The study aims to characterize the gap in real general and real research payments between man and woman urologists. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe study sample included all urologists in the United States who received at least one general or research payment in the OPP database from 2015 to 2021. Recipients were identified using the National Provider Identifier and National Downloadable File datasets. Payments were analyzed by geography, year, payment type, and years since graduation. Multivariable analysis on odds of being in above the median in terms of money received was done with gender as a covariate. This analysis was also completed for all academic urologists.
resultsThere was a total of 15,980 urologists; 13.6% were woman, and 86.4% were man. Compared to man urologists, woman urologists were less likely to be in the top half of total payments received (odds ratio [OR] 0.62) when adjusted for other variables. When looking at academic urologists, 18.1% were woman and 81.9% were man. However, woman academic urologists were even less likely to be in the top 50% of payments received (OR 0.55).
conclusionsThis study is the first to characterize the difference in industry payments between man and woman urologists. The results should be utilized to educate physicians and industry, in order to achieve equitable engagement and funding for woman urologists.
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.