ArticleJournal of general internal medicine2025
Comparing Male and Female Resident Physicians in Central Venous Catheter Insertion Self-confidence and Competency: A Retrospective Cohort Study.
Article in Journal of general internal medicine, 2025. 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.
- Assessing anatomical knowledge and confidence in central venous catheter insertion: a single-center cross-sectional study among physicians in a resource-limited setting.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2025Article
- Impact of gender on self-assessment accuracy among fourth-year French medical students on faculty's online Objective Structured Clinical Examinations.BMC medical education · 2024Article
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
backgroundFemale physicians often report lower self-confidence in their procedural and clinical competency compared to male physicians. There is limited data regarding self-reported confidence of female versus male trainees and any relation to objective competency in central venous catheter insertion.
objectiveTo analyze differences between male and female trainees in self-confidence and skill-based outcomes in placing central venous catheters.
designUsing data from a central venous catheter simulation training program at a large tertiary medical center, we performed linear regressions to analyze confidence difference pre- and post-training, number of restarts, and number of cannulation attempts while controlling for baseline demographic characteristics of the sample.
participantsPGY-1 physician residents in all residency specialties who insert central venous catheters in the clinical setting at a tertiary academic center with a sample size of 281 residents. MAIN MEASURES: Confidence difference pre- and post-training measured on a Likert scale 1-5, number of restarts (novel global assessment variable), and number of cannulation attempts during the competency evaluation. KEY
resultsFemale trainees had both lower pre-program confidence (1.35 versus 1.74 out of 5, p < 0.001) and lower post-program confidence (3.77 versus 4.12 out of 5, p = 0.0021) as compared to male trainees. There was no statistically significant difference in number of restarts (95% CI - 0.073 to 0.368, p = 0.185) or cannulation attempts (95% CI - 0.039 to 0.342, p = 0.117) between sexes in linear regressions controlled for age, specialty designation, prior central venous catheter training, prior ultrasound guided vessel cannulation training, and pre-training confidence level.
conclusionsFemale trainees rated their confidence significantly lower than their male counterparts both before and after the training program, despite no significant difference in skill-based outcomes. We discuss potential implications for trainees acquiring procedural skills during residency and for physician educators as they design training programs and delegate procedural opportunities.
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.