Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39102825›Full record

ArticleThe British journal of radiology2024

Looking at the gender disparity in interventional radiology: a scoping review.

Courtney Moffitt, Eloise Powell

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in The British journal of radiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Courtney MoffittWarwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, CV4 7AL, United Kingdom.ORCID 0009-0003-4593-9521
Eloise PowellWarwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, CV4 7AL, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe underrepresentation of women within interventional radiology (IR) is profound. This scoping review aims to evaluate the current literature on gender disparity within IR. To uncover relevant themes and research gaps to inform future research and to recommend changes aimed at increasing application and retention of women in IR.

methodsA review of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Web of Science was conducted. Specific inclusion and exclusion criteria were used to gather all relevant literature. Thematic analysis of included literature highlighted themes and commonalities between papers.

resultsOf 396 articles, only 15 met the inclusion criteria. Many papers were excluded due to their lack of relevance to the topic. Thematic analysis identified 6 themes radiation exposure, mentorship, male dominance, work-life balance, research, and early exposure to IR.

conclusionsRecommendations relating to each theme have been made. Establishing a high-quality mentoring scheme, for medical students, is the priority. Followed by accurate information, regarding radiation safety and teaching opportunities provided by medical schools and placement trusts, to demonstrate the value of IR and the need for a representative workforce. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: With little research based primarily within the United Kingdom, this review has amalgamated results from papers published internationally to highlight potential factors influencing the gender disparity within IR. Realistic recommendations and future points of research aimed at creating gender parity that are appropriate towards both the United Kingdom and global institutions have been suggested.

Indexed as

Radiology, InterventionalFemaleHumansMaleMentorsPhysicians, WomenRadiation ExposureSexismWork-Life BalanceGender Disparityinterventioninterventional radiology

Identifiers

PMID39102825
PMCPMC11417366

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.