ArticleJournal of assisted reproduction and genetics2026
Persistent gender disparities in research productivity among U.S. reproductive endocrinologists: a cross-sectional analysis.
Article in Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics, 2026. 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.
- Gender disparities in reproductive endocrinology and infertility research productivity: a multi-dimensional assessment.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo assess gender-based differences in career trajectories among reproductive endocrinology and infertility (REI) physicians in the United States, focusing on leadership, research productivity, and professional involvement.
methodsThis was a cross-sectional comparative study of demographic, professional, and research metrics stratified by gender. Practicing REI physicians were identified through the ASRM directory. Physician gender was evaluated as a variable influencing career outcomes. Main outcome measures included practice setting, geographic distribution, research productivity (h-index, publications, citations), academic leadership, journal editorial board, and society board positions. Mann-Whitney U and Chi-square tests were performed.
resultsAmong 767 REI physicians, 55% were male and 45% female. Slightly more females worked in academic settings (33.3% vs. 25.1%), while more males were in private practice (70.4% vs. 66.7%). Leadership representation was comparable between genders. Female physicians had marginally greater representation on editorial (7.8% vs. 7.1%) and society boards (5.8% vs. 4.3%). Males, however, had significantly higher research productivity (mean h-index: 16.44 vs. 10.94; publications: 52.53 vs. 26.72; citations: 2216.69 vs. 1155.28; all p < 0.001).
conclusionDespite near parity in leadership representation, gender disparities persist in research productivity among REI physicians. These discrepancies may reflect systemic inequities in academic support, promotion criteria, and institutional culture. Structural barriers such as inequitable research resources, gendered service loads, and family-building or domestic responsibilities may further constrain women's ability to engage in sustained scholarly productivity and advancement. Future efforts can prioritize inclusive data practices, equitable promotion policies, and targeted interventions to support diversity within reproductive medicine.
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.