ArticleThe Laryngoscope2025
The Experiences of Women in Otolaryngology: A Scoping Review.
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 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.
- Progress and Gaps: Two Decades of Female Authorship in High-Impact Otolaryngology Journals.Otolaryngology--head and neck surgery : official journal of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery · 2026Article
- Is There Ever a Right Time? An Evaluation of Family Planning During Otolaryngology Residency.Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology · 2026Article
- The Experiences of Women in Otolaryngology: A Scoping Review.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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveUnderstanding the unique experiences of women in otolaryngology is key to promoting gender equity within this field. The objective of this study is to systematically synthesize the literature on the experiences of women in otolaryngology during training and practice and identify gender disparities in representation and remuneration, scholarship and leadership, harassment and mistreatment, and pregnancy and parenthood. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, Scopus, CINAHL, gray literature sources (inception to November 24, 2024). REVIEW
methodsEnglish-language studies describing the experiences of women attendings and trainees in otolaryngology were included. Review articles, opinion pieces, and letters were excluded. Primary outcomes included representation, remuneration, contribution to scholarship, representation in leadership, incidence of harassment and mistreatment, and incidence of pregnancy and pregnancy-related complications. Quality assessment was performed using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Tool.
resultsNinety-seven studies met the inclusion criteria. Significant disparities were identified in representation and renumeration, scholarship and leadership, discrimination and harassment, and pregnancy and parenthood. Women were under-represented across all clinical settings and in research and leadership. Women attendings and residents report greater discrimination and harassment compared to men. Women described significant challenges in family planning, pregnancy, and breastfeeding. Pregnancy and child-rearing were described as barriers to career advancement.
conclusionGender disparities in otolaryngology are reported across multiple professional and personal domains, ranging from representation to research productivity and from mistreatment to motherhood. Understanding the unique experiences and challenges of women in otolaryngology is crucial to improving work and learning environments.
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.