Reliability of the Evidence Addressing Treatment of Corneal Diseases

Saldanha, Ian J.; Lindsley, Kristina; Lum, Flora; Dickersin, Kay; Li, Tianjing

doi:10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2019.1063

Cited by 20 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 119 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…5,[13][14][15] Recruiting and training these authors in Cochrane methods would greatly increase the capacity of Cochrane Eyes and Vision research output and the geographic diversity and representation in Cochrane reviews, as well as improve the overall quality of the evidence for eyes and vision conditions. [6][7][8][9] With regard to gender, we found that both Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews in the field of eye and vision research had approximately equal representation of gender among first authors who were also the corresponding authors, but that non-Cochrane reviews were less likely to have women than men among authors who had a single role as either first or corresponding author. Our sensitivity analyses There is a substantial amount of literature to support that women are underrepresented in leadership positions in academia.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 84%

“…5 Details of the generation of this database and its use are reported elsewhere. [6][7][8][9] We selected all Cochrane reviews in the database (n = 313) and randomly selected 313 non-Cochrane intervention reviews from the remaining records in the database. The 313 non-Cochrane reviews were selected using Microsoft Excel's random number function to assign each record a unique identifier and then ordering all records, then selecting the first 313 intervention reviews.…”

Section: Sample Selectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Authorship diversity among systematic reviews in eyes and vision

Qureshı

Han

Fapohunda

et al. 2020

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Importance : The inclusion of people from diverse backgrounds, and with different lived experiences is critical to ensuring the questions addressed in systematic reviews (SRs). The subsequent conclusions and recommendations made, are relevant and sensitive to the setting.Objective : To assess the gender and geographic diversity of authors among all Cochrane SRs in eyes and vision as compared with a random sample of non-Cochrane SRs of interventions in the field of eyes and vision.Design : The Cochrane Eyes and Vision United States Satellite maintains a database of SRs in the field of eyes and vision. We selected all (n = 313) Cochrane Library intervention SRs and a random sample of 313 non-Cochrane Library intervention SRs for this study. We extracted gender (‘woman,’ ‘man,’ or ‘unknown’) using a previously developed algorithm and location based on country and the World Health Organization region – of the first and corresponding authors using their full names and affiliations.Results : From the 626 reviews included in our sample, we identified 756 unique authors who comprised 887 author positions (i.e., first and/or corresponding authors). We were able to ascertain the gender of 652/756 (86%) authors: 279 women, and 373 men. Among Cochrane reviews, the proportions of women in first and/or corresponding author positions were consistent and approximately equal to men. Among non-Cochrane reviews, the representation of women was markedly lower as corresponding authors than other positions. We identified a location for each author and found most authors of Cochrane reviews were from the United Kingdom (31%) and United States of America (26%), whereas most authors of non-Cochrane reviews were from China (34%).Conclusions and relevance : Cochrane SRs in eyes and vision appear to have equal representation of women and men among the first and corresponding authors. Compared with non-Cochrane SRs in eyes and vision, Cochrane SRs appear to have a greater concentration of authors who are based in European and North American countries, possibly due to the locations of the Cochrane editorial teams. Cochrane Eyes and Vision should continue to recruit authors from around the world in locations that reflect the global burden of eye disease.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 84%

Section: Sample Selectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Authorship diversity among systematic reviews in eyes and vision

Qureshı

Han

Fapohunda

et al. 2020

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Cochrane reviews have been consistently found to be of higher methodological quality than non-Cochrane reviews [14,[27][28][29]. Recruiting and training these authors in Cochrane methods would greatly increase the capacity of Cochrane Eyes and Vision research output and the geographic diversity and representation in Cochrane reviews, as well as improve the overall quality of the evidence for eyes and vision conditions [15][16][17][18].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Authorship diversity among systematic reviews in eyes and vision

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Importance: The inclusion of authors from diverse backgrounds and with different lived experiences is critical to ensuring the questions addressed in systematic reviews (SRs), as well as the subsequent conclusions and recommendations made, are representative of the global community. Objective: To assess the gender and geographic diversity of authors among all Cochrane SRs in eyes and vision as compared with a random sample of non-Cochrane SRs of interventions in the field of eyes and vision. Design: The Cochrane Eyes and Vision US Satellite maintains a database of SRs in the field of eyes and vision. We selected all (n = 313) eyes and vision intervention SRs published in The Cochrane Library and a random sample of 313 eyes and vision intervention SRs published elsewhere for this study. We determined gender of the first and corresponding authors ("woman," "man," or "unknown") using a previously developed algorithm and their location based on institution country and the World Health Organization region. Results: From the 626 reviews included in our sample, we identified 751 unique authors who comprised 887 author positions (i.e., first and/or corresponding authors). We were able to ascertain the gender of 647/751 (86%) authors: 276 women and 371 men. Among Cochrane eyes and vision SRs, the proportions of women in first and/or corresponding author positions were consistent and approximately equal to men. Among non-Cochrane eyes and vision SRs, the representation of women was markedly lower as corresponding authors than other positions. Most authors of Cochrane eyes and vision SRs were from the UK (31%) and USA (26%), whereas most authors of non-Cochrane SRs were from China (34%). Conclusions and relevance: Compared with authors of non-Cochrane SRs in eyes and vision, authors of Cochrane SRs appear to have approximately equal representation of women and men among perceived important author positions and be located in European and North American countries, possibly due to the locations of the Cochrane editorial teams. Cochrane Eyes and Vision should continue to recruit authors from around the world in locations that reflect the global burden of eye disease.

show abstract

“…14,[27][28][29] Recruiting and training these authors in Cochrane methods would greatly increase the capacity of Cochrane Eyes and Vision research output and the geographic diversity and representation in Cochrane reviews, as well as improve the overall quality of the evidence for eyes and vision conditions. [15][16][17][18] This research is not without limitations, primarily in the method of ascertaining gender and the restriction to rst and corresponding author positions. We used an algorithm which we had previously developed and tested to ascertain the gender of included authors.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…14 Details of the generation of this database and its use are reported elsewhere. [15][16][17][18] We selected all Cochrane reviews of intervention in the database (n = 313) and randomly selected 313 non-Cochrane intervention reviews from the remaining 4,138 records in the database. We selected the 313 non-Cochrane reviews by assigning each record a randomly-generated, unique identi er and selected the rst 313 intervention reviews.…”

Section: Sample Selectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Authorship diversity among systematic reviews in eyes and vision

Qureshı

Han

Fapohunda

et al. 2020

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Importance: The inclusion of authors from diverse backgrounds and with different lived experiences is critical to ensuring the questions addressed in systematic reviews (SRs), as well as the subsequent conclusions and recommendations made, are representative of the global community.Objective: To assess the gender and geographic diversity of authors among all Cochrane SRs in eyes and vision as compared with a random sample of non-Cochrane SRs of interventions in the field of eyes and vision.Design: The Cochrane Eyes and Vision United States Satellite maintains a database of SRs in the field of eyes and vision. We selected all (n = 313) eyes and vision intervention SRs published in The Cochrane Library and a random sample of 313 eyes and vision intervention SRs published elsewhere for this study. We determined gender of the first and corresponding authors (‘woman,’ ‘man,’ or ‘unknown’) using a previously developed algorithm and their location based on institution country and the World Health Organization region. Results: From the 626 reviews included in our sample, we identified 751 unique authors who comprised 887 author positions (i.e., first and/or corresponding authors). We were able to ascertain the gender of 647/751 (86%) authors: 276 women, and 371 men. Among Cochrane eyes and vision SRs, the proportions of women in first and/or corresponding author positions were consistent and approximately equal to men. Among non-Cochrane eyes and vision SRs, the representation of women was markedly lower as corresponding authors than other positions. Most authors of Cochrane eyes and vision SRs were from the United Kingdom (31%) and United States of America (26%), whereas most authors of non-Cochrane SRs were from China (34%). Conclusions and relevance: Compared with authors of non-Cochrane SRs in eyes and vision, authors of Cochrane SRs appear to have approximately equal representation of women and men among perceived important author positions and be located in European and North American countries, possibly due to the locations of the Cochrane editorial teams. Cochrane Eyes and Vision should continue to recruit authors from around the world in locations that reflect the global burden of eye disease.

show abstract

Reliability of the Evidence Addressing Treatment of Corneal Diseases

Cited by 20 publications

References 119 publications

Authorship diversity among systematic reviews in eyes and vision

Authorship diversity among systematic reviews in eyes and vision

Authorship diversity among systematic reviews in eyes and vision

Authorship diversity among systematic reviews in eyes and vision

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About