ArticleRMD open2025
Trends and influences in women authorship in randomised controlled trials in rheumatology: a comprehensive analysis of all published RCTs from 2009 to 2023.
Article in RMD open, 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.
- Performance of name-to-gender inference: comparison between Gender API, NamSor, and genderize.io in a multicultural global dataset.Internal and emergency medicine · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesWe examined the evolution and influencing factors of women's authorship in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published in rheumatology.
methodsWe analysed all RCTs published in rheumatology from 2009 to 2023 determining authors' gender using the Gender API service. The percentage of women as authors in published RCTs and its association with potential factors was assessed using generalised estimating equations. We considered women's gender as the primary outcome and included the continent of the RCT, the status of international collaboration, industrial funding, intervention type, sample size, the journal's adherence to International Committee of Medical Journal Editors recommendations, impact factor, publication year, authors' non-academic affiliations and author positions as exposures of interest.
resultsWe included 1092 RCTs with 10 794 authors; in the overall non-adjusted estimated analysis, we found that women accounted for 39.8% (95% CI 38.4% to 41.2%) of all authors. Women authorship was higher in African-based RCTs, among pharmaceutical-affiliated authors, and when the last author was a woman (OR 2.34 (95% CI 1.02 to 5.38), +19.46 pp). It was lower in Asian and European RCTs and industry-funded RCTs (OR 0.79 (95% CI 0.66 to 0.93), -5.85 pp). Women were less often last (OR 0.63 (95% CI 0.54 to 0.74), -10.2 pp) or second-to-last authors (OR 0.73 (95% CI 0.62 to 0.85), -10.19 pp), with no differences by international status or publication year.
conclusionThe persistent under-representation of women in RCTs and their lower chances of being senior authors highlight the need for better strategies to close the gender gap. RCTs with a woman last author were more likely to have a woman first author, suggesting a potential role model effect.
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.