ReviewIndian journal of orthopaedics2025
A Systematic Review to Assess Gender Diversity in Authorship Within the Orthopaedic Surgery Literature.
Review in Indian journal of orthopaedics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Gender diversity trends in orthopaedic research are dynamic. While an increase of women in orthopaedics has been observed, gender imbalances continue to exist, especially in academic leadership and research roles. The purpose of our study was to assess the representation of women in authorship roles over a 20-year period. Methods: We conducted a systematic review of clinical research studies published in The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery and The Bone and Joint Journal between 1996-2000 and 2016-2020. First, corresponding and last author gender was determined using a combination of automated name analysis and manual searches. We performed chi-squared tests to assess differences in the proportion of women in each authorship position across time periods, journals, and orthopaedic subspecialties. Results: Women represented 12.4% of first authors, 8.1% of last authors and 10.5% of corresponding authors. The proportion of women in first and corresponding author positions increased over time ( Conclusion: This study found improvements in the representation of women in first and corresponding author roles, however significant gaps remain, particularly in leadership positions represented by last author position. Continued monitoring and intervention are essential to promote long-term, meaningful change in the field.
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.