ArticleBrazilian oral research2025
Gender trends in authorship of randomized clinical trials in dentistry.
Article in Brazilian oral research, 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.
- Performance of name-to-gender inference: comparison between Gender API, NamSor, and genderize.io in a multicultural global dataset.Internal and emergency medicine · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of the study was to explore female authorship in various aspects of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in dentistry. A search was performed in PubMed for RCTs, in dentistry, indexed from 12/31/2016 to 12/31/2021. Only studies in English were considered. Data selection and extraction were performed by two authors and the following data collected: year of publication, journal, subject, number and names of authors, and country and gender (Genderize website) of the first 10 authors. Descriptive analyses, graphs, and maps were generated. Poisson regression assessed the influence of continent and year of publication on the presence of women as first or last authors. The results were presented as prevalence ratios (PR) and 95% confidence intervals (95%CI). A total of 844 RCTs and 4,305 authors (2,372 men and 1,662 women) were included. Gender disparity increases as the order of authorship advances. Among first authors, men represent 50.59% and women 44.08%, whereas among last authors, they account for 61.92% and 34.03%, respectively. Analyses showed no association between year of publication and the presence of women as authors. There were fewer women as first authors in Europe (PR: 0.82, 95%CI: 0.68-0.99) and as last authors in Europe and Asia (PR: 0.68, 95%CI: 0.53-0.87 and PR: 0.79, 95%CI: 0.63-0.99, respectively). The findings highlight a lower presence of female authors in all aspects analyzed in the RCTs, especially in last authorship. Also, there has been no indication of improvement in recent years. Female participation in RCTs is crucial not only for gender equity but also as a means to enhance the quality and relevance of clinical data for decision-making.
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.