ArticleSexual medicine2025
Disproportionately low authorship by women urologists in sexual medicine journals.
Article in Sexual 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.
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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The recent efforts to increase the proportion of women in urology have demonstrated success; it is equally important to evaluate success of these efforts in urologic sub-specialized fields as well. Aim: This study aims to evaluate the impact of these efforts and the representation of women urologists in the sexual medicine literature. Methods: Original research manuscripts from three prominent sexual medicine journals from 2013 to 2023 were collected. Manuscripts submitted under Paraphilia subsections, as well as systematic reviews, meta-analyses, communications, commentaries, replies, and those involving psychometrics were excluded. Proportion of women authors in these journals' literature was determined by searching names of first and last authors on the Internet. Outcomes: This study evaluates whether authorship by women in sexual medicine literature has increased following recent efforts to enhance their representation in urology and related fields. Results: 1065 of 2701 (39%) collected manuscripts meeting criteria were from first (FA) or last authors (LA). Women were significantly less likely to be FA or LAs across these manuscripts ( Clinical Implications: These disparities in sexual medicine publications have important consequences for women urologists; these opportunities often impact future career advancement in academia. Strengths and Limitations: Gender identification relied on traditional markers (such as names and pronouns), which may not fully capture the diversity of gender identities, we sought to mediate that by using a binary identification method. The analysis was also limited to first and last authorship, which may not capture contributions from middle authors. Conclusion: Although the push to increase the proportion of women urologists has shown success, there are still significant disparities seen in publication of sexual medicine literature. Potential avenues for improvement include mentorship and targeted institutional support.
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.