ArticleThe Laryngoscope2025
The Social Network of Otolaryngology: Collaborative Publishing Relationships by Gender.
Article in The Laryngoscope, 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.
- The Social Network of Otolaryngology: Collaborative Publishing Relationships by Gender.The Laryngoscope · 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
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThis study aims to evaluate if gender differences exist in social connectedness (betweenness centrality) and professional impact (h-indices) within Otolaryngology when controlling for variables such as academic rank, subspecialty, and geographic region.
methodsPhysician faculty (n = 2494) from 129 US ACGME accredited otolaryngology programs were identified. Characteristics included gender, academic rank, sub-specialty, and SCOPUS IDs. The co-authorship network was visualized and consisted of 2265 physicians (nodes) connected by 28,408 collaborative relationships (edges). The professional connectedness of physicians was calculated using betweenness centrality (BWC), which quantifies how frequently a physician node appears on the shortest path between two other nodes. Analysis employed ordinal regression fitting semiparametric multivariable cumulative probability models.
resultsAmong 2265 faculty physicians identified, 69% were male, 26% were female, and 5% were unknown. Female faculty had lower h-index and BWC scores compared to their male colleagues. When controlling for subspecialty and region, male and female assistant professors did not show evidence of a difference in BWC scores (odds ratio (OR) = 0.96, p = 0.80). However, among associate and full professors, males tended to have higher BWC compared to female counterparts (OR = 1.47, p = 0.0086 for associate and OR = 2.05, p < 0.0001 for full professors).
conclusionAnalysis of our co-authorship network showed that current male and female Otolaryngology faculty have equivalent academic impact and professional connectedness at lower academic ranks but diverge at higher ranks. These findings suggest that increased efforts to support female academic development at the mid-career level may reduce the observed gender disparities at higher academic ranks. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: N/A.
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.