ArticleCritical care (London, England)2025
Factors associated with women authorship over 25 years in high-impact critical care randomized controlled trials: the pipeline is still leaking.
Article in Critical care (London, England), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Sodium bicarbonate therapy in severe metabolic acidemia: an individual patient data meta-analysis of the BICAR-ICU and BICAR-ICU2 trials.Critical care (London, England) · 2026Pooled it
- Reconsidering the use of predicted body weight when setting tidal volumes in female patients.Intensive care medicine · 2026Article
- Gender equality and equity in intensive care: an international Delphi consensus study.Intensive care medicine · 2026Review
- Impact of gender on how intensive care medicine residents experience their medical studies and training and perceive their specialty: a national survey.Annals of intensive care · 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundStudies have shown an underrepresentation of women in clinical research, but little is known about trends over time and factors associated with this underrepresentation. This study aimed to investigate the evolution and the independent factors associated with the proportion of women in the authorship of high-impact critical care randomized controlled trials (RCTs) over 25 years.
methodsThis meta-epidemiological study screened adult critical care RCTs published between 1999 and 2023 in the six highest-impact general and critical care journals. Sex was assessed using a combination of authors' biographies, available photographs, the gender R package, and a native Chinese speaker's assistance to ensure cultural accuracy. The primary outcome was the proportion of women among the authors. Unadjusted and adjusted generalized linear mixed models were performed.
resultsOf 1,203 RCTs, the sex of all authors was determined in 1,199 (99.7%). Overall, 4,335 out of 16,057 authors (27%) were women. Women were less frequently first (247/1,199 [21%], p < 0.001) or senior authors (174/1,199 [15%], p < 0.001) compared to other positions. The proportion of women among authors increased by a change rate of 0.7% per year ([0.5%-0.9%]) from 18% in 1999 to 32% in 2023. In multivariable analysis, the proportion of women increased significantly per year of publication (odds ratio [OR] = 1.05, 95% confidence interval [1.02-1.09], p < 0.01) and sample size (OR = 1.007 [1.003-1.012] per 100 patients increase, p = 0.01), and decreased significantly in European RCTs (OR = 0.53 [0.33-0.85], p < 0.01), RCTs on ventilation (OR = 0.50 [0.25-0.97], p = 0.04) but not sepsis (OR = 0.74 [0.37-1.46], p = 0.39), mortality as primary outcome (OR = 0.36 [0.14-0.92], p = 0.03), and with endorsement by a study group (OR = 0.36 [0.18-0.69], p < 0.01).
conclusionsAlthough the proportion of women in authorship has risen over 25 years, women are still widely underrepresented in the authors of high-impact RCTs, especially as first and senior authors. This underrepresentation is exacerbated in Europe, in trials with mortality as primary outcome, on ventilation, or endorsed by a study group. This illustrates the "leaky pipeline" framework: women are still excluded from the highest-level of critical care research.
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.