ArticleJournal of medical imaging and radiation oncology2025
Is There Gender Disparity in RANZCR Radiation Oncology Grants and Prizes Success?
Article in Journal of medical imaging and radiation oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Gender disparities in academic radiation oncology research: A narrative review.Clinical and translational radiation oncology · 2027Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionRecent RANZCR studies have demonstrated gender disparity in research publication output of both radiation oncology (RO) trainees and specialists, favouring men. The purpose of this project was to examine success rates by gender of grant and prize (G&P) submissions to the RO Research Committee (RORC) to determine if anything needs to be done about the appraisal process to potentially address that disparity.
methodsCollege records between 2011 and 2024 (where applicable) were searched by gender for one RO trainee, and two other research manuscript prizes, and two research grant rounds. During that period, the averaged gender ratio for the RO Faculty specialist membership was M:F = 61%:39%. Fisher's exact test p < 0.05 was considered significant with respect to gender disparity.
resultsRelative to the gender ratio of applicants, there were no statistically significant gender differences between winners for any of the five G&Ps individually (p ≥ 0.15 for each), or in composite (p = 0.25). Although application rates overall (M:F = 62%:38%) were consistent with the membership gender ratio, women were markedly less likely to apply for prizes (25% of applicants) than grants (44%).
conclusionNo gender disparity was found for winners of the five RO G&Ps individually or overall relative to applicant gender ratios. Accordingly, it does not appear that the RORC needs to change its assessment processes in relation to gender. However, women were under-represented in prize applications, reflecting previously reported gender differences in award-seeking behaviour.
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.