ArticleLaryngoscope investigative otolaryngology2025
Global Authorship Representation in Otolaryngology Clinical Trials.
Article in Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Abstract
Objective: To investigate global authorship representation in clinical trials published in major general otolaryngology journals over the past two decades. Methods: We conducted a bibliometric analysis of clinical trials published in four major general otolaryngology journals between 2000 and 2020. The affiliated nationalities of authors in leading positions (first, senior, corresponding) were reviewed for each trial. Countries were classified by World Bank income group. The temporal trajectory of representation was estimated in multivariable logistic regression models, adjusting for publication environment and study design. The academic impact of trials across income groups was also compared. Results: Among 1432 trials, the leading authors for most were affiliated with non-USA nations (57%) and high-income countries (HIC) (87%). Trials led by authors from upper-middle income countries (UMIC), lower-middle income countries (LMIC), and low-income countries (LIC) were severely underrepresented (11%, 3%, 0%, respectively). Over time, non-USA representation increased (+0.5%, 95% CI [+0.13%, +0.92%] per year), HIC representation decreased (-0.45% [-0.77%, -0.12%]), UMIC representation remained stable (0.19% [-0.13%, 0.51%]), LMIC representation mildly increased (0.26% [0.16%, 0.35%]), and LIC representation remained absent (0%). UMIC author-led trials (aIRR 0.80 [0.68, 0.94]) received significantly fewer citations compared to HIC author-led trials regardless of study design and publication year. Conclusions: The clinical trial literature in the four most widely circulated OHNS journals is dominated by HIC authorship, with only marginal growth in LMIC contributions and no representation from LICs over the past two decades. This underrepresentation may impact the applicability of clinical guidelines in lower-income regions.
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.