Background: Recent studies suggest that female researchers are less visible on social media. The objective of this observational work was to compare the use of professional social networks between male and female anaesthesia researchers. Methods: Among four anaesthesia journals, we analysed the first/last authors (FA/LA) of the most frequently cited articles in 2016e2017 and the authors who published more than one article per year between 2013 and 2018 (prolific authors). We compared the use of the professional social networks Twitter, LinkedIn, and ResearchGate by the selected authors and analysed the proportion of women in FA and LA position. The variables are presented as median (interquartile range). Results: The analysis included 260 FA, 232 LA, and 297 prolific authors. Despite similar declared skills and number of citations, women had lower scientific reputation scores on ResearchGate (RG score: 32.0 [24.4e41.1] vs 20.3 [15.1e29.2]; P<0.0001 in the FA group; 39.3 [34.3e43.4] vs 35.7 [30.3e39.5], P<0.01 in the LA group; and 41.5 [35.6e45.7] vs 36.8 [28.1e42.7], P<0.01 in the prolific group).In all groups, women were significantly less followed on ResearchGate than men. In the three groups, the Twitter (22.7%, 25.0%, and 23.6%, respectively) and LinkedIn (59.2%, 56.5%, and 62.3%, respectively) usage rate were similar with no difference between men and women in each group. Of the 260 articles included, 94 (36.2%) manuscripts had female FA, whereas 41 (15.8%) had female LA. Conclusion:In anaesthesia, the visibility of female researchers on the social network dedicated to scientific research is lower than that of male researchers.

No abstract

No abstract