ArticleEye (London, England)2026
Locally-affiliated authorship in global eye health research conducted in Sub-Saharan Africa between 2003 and 2022.
Article in Eye (London, England), 2026. 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDespite calls for equitable global eye-health research partnerships, there are limited data on authorship trends in research from Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). Our aims were to determine the magnitude, trends, associated factors, and gender disparities related to inequitable authorship in eye-health research conducted in SSA.
methodsThis was a cross-sectional analysis of SSA eye-health publications between 2003 and 2022. A systematic literature search was conducted. Data were manually extracted from the 1777 publications that met eligibility screening criteria. Namsor V.2 was used to classify author gender. Outcomes included no locally-affiliated authors and SSA-affiliated female authors.
resultsOverall, 1777 publications were included. The percentage of publications with no locally-affiliated authors was 6% overall, 33% in the first author position, and 45% in the last author position. There were no significant trends in the exclusion of locally-affiliated authors between 2003 and 2022 (no authors: p = 0.899; no first authors: p = 0.515; no last authors: p = 0.574). Factors with a higher odds of no locally-affiliated authors at all or in prominent positions included high-income-country-affiliated co-authors, low-income study countries, randomised trials, high-impact research, US/UK journal publishers and funders, and trachoma publications. SSA-affiliated female authors were underrepresented in prominent authorship positions (first authors: p < 0.001; last authors: p < 0.001) and had lower odds of representation with US/UK journal publishers, low-income study countries, and randomised trials.
conclusionInequitable authorship practices persist in eye-health research in SSA. Greater commitment towards partnership equity by ophthalmic researchers, journals, and funding organisations is needed.
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.