Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40861799›Full record

ArticleBMJ open sport & exercise medicine2025

Gender parity in sports medicine; present imperative not future aspiration.

Megan Ormond, Daniel Fitzpatrick

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open sport & exercise medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Megan OrmondAshford and St Peter's Hospitals NHS Trust, Chertsey, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0003-7694-2627
Daniel FitzpatrickUniversity College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, England, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Gender disparity persists in sports and exercise medicine (SEM), with women comprising only 27% of the faculty of SEM (FSEM) membership. While existing literature explores the barriers women face in progressing within SEM, less attention has been given to when and why female medical students disengage from the specialty pathway. This viewpoint article analyses data from the National Undergraduate SEM Society (USEMS), University SEM Committees and National Health Service England to track gender differences at various career stages. FSEM membership data was also reviewed to assess representation at the consultant level. Over the past 5 years, 46.8% of USEMS members and 48.6% of University SEM Committee members have been women. In contrast, at the Foundation doctor level, female USEMS membership figures drop to 24% and only 20.1% of SEM training applications submitted between 2021 and 2023 were by women. Despite strong engagement at the undergraduate level, few women pursue specialty SEM training, indicating that external barriers may be discouraging them from continuing. More research is needed to understand the specific factors leading to this disengagement so that appropriate steps can be taken to prevent it.

Indexed as

FemaleSports & exercise medicineSports medicineTrainingUniversity

Identifiers

PMID40861799
PMCPMC12374673

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.