Observational studySurgical endoscopy2025
Gender gap in surgical societies awards.
Observational study in Surgical endoscopy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Surgery on the edge: shaping the future between motivation, burnout, and gender inequities-a narrative review.Updates in surgery · 2026Review
- Sustaining momentum in gender equity: Lessons from the women in European Society of Sports Traumatology, Knee Surgery and Arthroscopy initiative.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2025Article
- "Choose a softer field": how gendered mentorship and institutional culture limit women in surgery.Canadian medical education journal · 2025Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionDespite remarkable progress, gender inequality in medicine remains a significant issue. This disparity extends beyond clinical practices and educational programs; it is also evident in the recognition and awards received by surgeons. Underrepresentation of women in Surgical Society awards is a multi-layered issue that needs a holistic approach since these awards are used to hire, promote, and advance surgeons. METHODS AND PROCEDURES: A retrospective observational study was performed between 1936 and 2023 on all recipients of awards from 22 surgical societies. The study examines the relationship between recipient gender and award year. Medians, and interquartile ranges (IQRs) were used for continuous data, and frequencies and percentages were used for categorical data. Chi-square and Wilcoxon rank sum tests were used to compare female and male recipients. Multiple logistic regression was used to estimate the probability that a female will receive an award.
resultsA total of 2588 awards were given out between 1936 and 2023. Among the 2588 awards, 2024 went to male surgeons, and 564 to female surgeons. Since 1936, there have been 0-25 women awarded annually, with a proportion of female awardees between 0 and 0.5. Since 1936, the proportion of women awardees has increased significantly (p < 0.01). Since 2006, female award winners have increased by 0.7% (95% CI 0.007-0.008, p = 0.001) when controlling for surgical societies. A woman's odds of receiving an award from a surgical society have increased by only 3% per year since 2006 (OR 1.03, 95% CI 1.01-1.07, p = 0.004). Accordingly, female surgeon awards grew from 0.22 in 2006 to 0.35 in 2023.
conclusionFemale surgeons' continuous underrepresentation in Surgical Society awards is a crucial issue. The selection process of surgical societies needs to be more intentional as female recipients have steadily increased in recent years. Closing this gender gap is not only a matter of fairness but also imperative for the field's progress.
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.