ArticlePloS one2026
Gender disparities in leadership of methodological research in health science.
Article in PloS one, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesGender disparities in methodological studies are largely unexplored. We aimed to examine gender representation between first and last authorship positions in methodological research in health science.
methodsWe searched for methodological articles as part of a large study focused on creating a methodological study reporting checklist. We extracted the names of the first and last authors of all included studies and determined their gender using Genderize.io, classifying authors as women if the gender probability was ≥ 60%. Our primary outcome was the proportion of studies with women in leadership roles (first or last author as separate outcomes). Secondary outcomes included the proportion of studies with both or either the first or last authors as women. We examined associations between women's leadership and country income level, World Health Organization region, number of authors on the study team, and publication year.
resultsOf the 1,375 included studies, the genders of 1,332 first authors and 1,334 last authors were determined. Among first authors, 675 (50.7%) were women, and 657 (49.3%) were men, indicating no gender difference. Among last authors, 486 (36.4%) were women, and 848 (63.6%) were men, with a statistically significant difference (χ² = 98.23, p < 0.001). Studies with women last authors had fewer listed co-authors than those with men (t = -3.63, p < 0.001; risk difference = -27.14%, 95% CI -32.50% to -21.77%). In adjusted models, women's last authorship was negatively associated with number of authors (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]=0.93, 95% CI 0.90-0.97). Publication year was associated with both women first (aOR=1.03, 95% CI 1.01-1.05) and last (aOR=1.05, 95% CI 1.02-1.07) authorship.
conclusionsOur findings highlight a gender disparity in last authorship positions, with men more often in these roles. The association between women last authorship position and smaller author teams may reflect differences in collaborative structure and access to leadership opportunities in larger-scale methodological research. Addressing these disparities can help foster more inclusive research environments, especially within methodological research.
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.