Authorship diversity in Gastroenterology-related Cochrane systematic reviews: Inequities in global representation

Dhali, Arkadeep; D’Souza, Christopher; Rathna, Roger B; Biswas, Jyotirmoy; Dhali, Gopal Krishna

doi:10.3389/fmed.2022.982664

Cited by 4 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These results echo findings from previous work in specific medical fields, showing poor representation of Cochrane review authors from LMICs in the fields of hematology (9), gastroenterology (11), and cardiology (13). Additionally, in 2022 Cochrane reported that only 12% of the 111,000 members were based in an LMIC (6).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 85%

“…countries, predominantly from the UK (approximately one-third of all authors). Despite a very active community of researchers from Spanish-speaking countries in Cochrane, evidenced by a sizable proportion of Geographic Groups and a dedicated conglomerate (Cochrane Iberoamerica), author representation from Spanish-speaking countries was low.These results echo findings from previous work in specific medical fields, showing poor representation of Cochrane review authors from LMICs in the fields of hematology(9), gastroenterology(11), and cardiology(13). Additionally, in 2022 Cochrane reported that only 12% of the 111,000 members were based in an LMIC(6).…”

supporting

confidence: 81%

“…Publications on this topic today have focused on narrow topics such as hematology (9), eyes and vision (10), gastroenterology (11), cardiology (13), and general surgery (14), or a specific geographical location (e.g., sub-Saharan Africa (17)). Thus, this meta-research study aims to assess the distribution of country, region, language, and gender diversity in Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews’ authorship.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Geographical and Gender Diversity in Cochrane and non-Cochrane Reviews Authorship: A Meta-Research Study

Sofi-Mahmudi,

Stojanova,

Vounzoulaki

et al. 2024

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Cochrane is a recognized source of quality evidence that informs health-related decisions. As an organization, it represents a global network of diverse stakeholders. Cochrane's key organizational values include diversity and inclusion, to enable wide participation and promote access. However, the diversity of Cochrane review authorship has not been well summarized. Objective: The aim of this study was to examine the distribution of country, region, language, and gender diversity in the authorship of Cochrane reviews. Methods: We retrieved all published articles from the Cochrane Library (until November 6, 2023)-a web crawling technique that extracted pre-specified data fields, including publication date, review type, and author affiliations. We used E-utility calls to capture the data for non-Cochrane systematic reviews. We determined the country and region of affiliations and the gender of the first, corresponding, and last authors for Cochrane reviews, as well as the country and region of affiliations and the gender of the first authors for non-Cochrane reviews. Trends in geographical and gender diversity over time were evaluated using logistic regression. Fisher's exact test was used for comparisons. The diversity of first authors between Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews was explored through visual presentation, Pearson's product-moment correlation, and the Granger Causality Test. We used R for data collection and analysis. Results: A total of 22681 citations were retrieved. The United Kingdom had the highest first-author representation (33.2%), followed by Australia (11.6%) and the United States (7.0%). We observed an increase in the proportion of first authors from non-English speaking countries, from 16.7% in 1996 to 42.8% in 2023. Female first authorship increased steadily, from 15.0% in 1996 to 55.6% in 2023. The proportion of first authors from lower-and-middle-income countries (LMICs) was highest in 2012 at 23.2%. Since then, it has decreased to 18.4% in 2023. Similarly, the proportion of last authors from LMICs decreased over time (25.0% in 1996 vs. 16.2% in 2023). Among review groups, Sexually Transmitted Infections and Consumers and Communication were the most and least diverse groups with 68.1% and 1.6% of first authors from LMICs, respectively. In terms of gender diversity, Fertility Regulation had the highest percentage of female first authors (72.1%). Urology (28.1%) had the lowest percentage of female first authors. In 2023, over half of the non-Cochrane reviews had first authors from non-English-speaking countries (n=14,589, 56.9%), 50.8% (n=13,014) had first authors from LMICs, and 42.3% (n=10,841) had female first authors. The Pearson's product-moment correlations between Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews' trends were 0.265 (P=0.450) for LMICs, 0.823 (P<0.001) for non-English speaking, 0.634 (P<0.001) Spanish-speaking, and 0.829 (P<0.001) for female first authorship. Conclusion: Overall, this study found positive trends, with an increase in first authorship by individuals who were female and from non-English speaking countries. However, the representation of first authors from non-high-income countries decreased. Future research could further explore these trends, identifying potential barriers influencing access and participation of individuals and groups and assessing strategies that help promote diversity and inclusion.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 85%

supporting

confidence: 81%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Geographical and Gender Diversity in Cochrane and non-Cochrane Reviews Authorship: A Meta-Research Study

Sofi-Mahmudi,

Stojanova,

Vounzoulaki

et al. 2024

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The paucity of women as first or last authors of clinical guidelines reflects tendencies across life sciences and medicine, wherein women are particularly under‐represented in publication‐related leadership positions such as corresponding author, editor‐in‐chief and editorial board membership 6,18 . This mirrors other work domains, for example the S&P 500 (500 of the largest companies listed on stock exchanges in the United States), in which you are more likely to be CEO if your name is James or Michael than if you are a woman 19 .…”

Section: Figurementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Sex‐biased clinical trials 1 and healthcare algorithms 2 can impact care of women patients, who are made to wait longer to be seen by physicians, 3 and are more likely to have their symptoms attributed to mental illness 4 . Meanwhile, women's career development in medicine and research can be hampered by lower salaries, 5 under‐representation in prominent authorships 6 and skewed citation practices 7 . Gender bias also negatively impacts men, who are confronted with gender stereotypes of which career choices in medicine are suitable, 8,9 expectations of how they should behave in a given specialty 8,10 and limited availability of paid paternity leave 11 .…”

Section: Figurementioning

confidence: 99%

CPG publishing: ‘Man’‐uscripts reign supreme

Andersson

2023

Liver International

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In medicine, gender bias impacts both patients and healthcare practitioners. Sex-biased clinical trials 1 and healthcare algorithms 2 can impact care of women patients, who are made to wait longer to be seen by physicians, 3 and are more likely to have their symptoms attributed to mental illness. 4 Meanwhile, women's career development in medicine and research can be hampered by lower salaries, 5 under-representation in prominent authorships 6 and skewed citation practices. 7 Gender bias also negatively impacts men, who are confronted with gender stereotypes of which career choices in medicine are suitable, 8,9 expectations of how they should behave in a given specialty 8,10 and limited availability of paid paternity leave. 11 Unfortunately, the impact on men of gender inequality, and the initiatives devised to address this, are severely under-studied. 12 Eliminating gender bias is necessary to ensure the highest standards of medical care for all patients, to allow all individuals to pursue careers of their own choosing, and to ensure that career development of practitioners and scientists is based on performance. Clinical societies provide forums to share knowledge and shape the future of the field, and several major gastroenterology societies have dedicated committees or policy statements formalizing their intent to reduce

show abstract

Gender, Racial, and Academic Authorship Diversity in the Otolaryngology Clinical Trial Literature

Yang,

Huynh,

Moffatt

et al. 2024

Otolaryngol.--head neck surg.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveTo investigate the state and trajectory of gender, racial, and academic authorship diversity in the otolaryngology clinical trial literature over the past 2 decades.Study DesignBibliometric analysis.SettingOtolaryngology clinical trial literature.MethodsClinical trials published in the 9 major otolaryngology journals between 2000 and 2020 were included. The gender, race, and academic seniority of the first, senior, and corresponding authors were recorded for each trial. Multivariable regression models assessed the temporal trajectory of authorship diversity over time and the disparity in citations across author characteristics. Models adjusted for relevant confounders pertaining to publication environment and study design.ResultsAmong 2117 trials, first, senior, and corresponding authors have been predominantly White (60%‐64%), male (76%‐80%), and attending physicians (63%‐69%). Trials led by Black (<1%) and Hispanic (<5%) authors were severely underrepresented. Over time, the representation of female (adj. β 0.8%, 95% CI [0.5%, 1.1%] per year), Asian (1.0% [0.7%, 1.3%] per year), and MD resident (0.4% [0.1%, 0.7%] per year) first authorship increased, but representation of female (0.2% [−0.1%, 0.5%] per year), Black (0% [−0.03%, 0.02%] per year), Hispanic (−0.2% [−0.33%, −0.02%] per year) senior authorship remained persistently low. Asian‐led trials were cited significantly less compared to White‐led trials even after adjusting for study design and publication year (aIRR 0.82 [0.73, 0.92]).ConclusionsDespite promising signs of improving authorship diversity over time, persistent underrepresentation of female, Black, Hispanic senior authorship underscore the need for additional efforts to diversify the otolaryngology clinical science workforce.

show abstract

Authorship diversity in Gastroenterology-related Cochrane systematic reviews: Inequities in global representation

Cited by 4 publications

References 15 publications

Geographical and Gender Diversity in Cochrane and non-Cochrane Reviews Authorship: A Meta-Research Study

Geographical and Gender Diversity in Cochrane and non-Cochrane Reviews Authorship: A Meta-Research Study

CPG publishing: ‘Man’‐uscripts reign supreme

Gender, Racial, and Academic Authorship Diversity in the Otolaryngology Clinical Trial Literature

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About