Suppr超能文献

2016 年至 2020 年使用评估研究和评估工具 II 对麻醉临床实践指南的作者和质量进行的性别差异分析。

Gender Differences in Authorship and Quality of Anesthesia Clinical Practice Guidelines From 2016 to 2020 Using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II Instrument.

机构信息

From the Department of Anesthesiology, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, New York.

Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, New York.

出版信息

Anesth Analg. 2024 Nov 1;139(5):955-964. doi: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000006803. Epub 2024 May 20.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION

Women continue to be underrepresented in academic anesthesiology. This study assessed guidelines in anesthesia journals over the past 5 years, evaluating differences in woman-led versus man-led guidelines in terms of author gender, quality, and changes over time. We hypothesized that anesthesia guidelines would be predominately man-led, and that there would be differences in quality between woman-led versus man-led guidelines.

METHODS

All clinical practice guidelines published in the top 10 anesthesia journals were identified as per Clarivate Analytics Impact Factor between 2016 and 2020. Fifty-one guidelines were included for author, gender, and quality analysis using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument. Each guideline was assessed across 6 domains and 23 items and given an overall score, overall quality score, and overall rating/recommendation. Stratified and trend analyses were performed for woman-led versus man-led guidelines.

RESULTS

Fifty out of 51 guidelines were included: 1 was excluded due to unidentifiable first-author gender. In total, 255 of 1052 (24%) authors were women, and woman-led guidelines (woman-first author) represented 12 of 50 (24%) overall guidelines. Eighteen percent (9 of 50) of guidelines had all-male authors, and a majority (26 of 50, 52%) had less than one-third of female authors. The overall number and percentage of woman-led guidelines did not change over time. There was a significantly higher percentage of female authors in woman-led versus man-led guidelines, median 39% vs 20% ( P = .012), as well as a significantly higher number of female coauthors in guidelines that were woman-led median 3.5 vs 1.0, P = .049. For quality, there was no significant difference in the overall rating or objective quality of woman- versus man-led guidelines. However, there was a significant increase in the overall rating of all the guidelines over time ( P = .010), driven by the increase in overall rating among man-led guidelines, P = .002. The overall score of guidelines did not increase over time; however, they increased in man-led but not woman-led guidelines. There was no significant correlation between the percentage of female authors per guideline and either overall score or overall rating.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a substantial disparity in the number of women leading and contributing to guidelines which has not improved over time. Woman-led guidelines included more women and a higher percentage of women. There was no difference in quality of guidelines by first-author gender or percentage of female authors. Further systematic and quota-driven sponsorship is needed to promote gender equity, diversity, and inclusion in anesthesia guidelines.

摘要

简介

在学术麻醉学领域,女性的代表性仍然不足。本研究评估了过去 5 年麻醉学期刊中的指南,根据女性主导与男性主导指南在作者性别、质量以及随时间变化方面的差异进行了评估。我们假设麻醉指南将主要由男性主导,并且女性主导与男性主导指南之间在质量上存在差异。

方法

根据 2016 年至 2020 年期间 Clarivate Analytics 影响因子,确定了前 10 名麻醉期刊中发表的所有临床实践指南。使用评估研究和评估指南 (AGREE II) 工具对 51 项指南进行了作者、性别和质量分析。根据 6 个领域和 23 个项目对每个指南进行了评估,并给出了总体评分、总体质量评分和总体建议/推荐。对女性主导与男性主导指南进行了分层和趋势分析。

结果

共纳入 51 项指南中的 50 项:1 项因无法识别第一作者的性别而被排除在外。在总共 1052 位作者中,有 255 位(24%)为女性,而 50 项指南中有 12 项(24%)为女性主导。有 18%(9/50)的指南全部由男性作者撰写,大多数(50 项中的 26 项,52%)指南的女性作者不到三分之一。女性主导指南的数量和百分比在过去 5 年中没有变化。女性主导指南的女性作者比例明显高于男性主导指南,中位数分别为 39%和 20%(P=0.012),女性合著者的数量也明显多于男性主导指南,中位数分别为 3.5 和 1.0(P=0.049)。在质量方面,女性主导与男性主导指南的总体评分或客观质量没有显著差异。然而,所有指南的总体评分随着时间的推移显著增加(P=0.010),这主要是由于男性主导指南的总体评分增加所致,P=0.002。指南的总体评分没有随着时间的推移而增加;然而,它们在男性主导指南中增加了,但在女性主导指南中没有增加。指南中女性作者的比例与总体评分或总体评分之间没有显著相关性。

结论

在领导和参与指南方面,女性的人数存在很大差距,而且这种差距随着时间的推移并没有得到改善。女性主导的指南纳入了更多的女性和更高比例的女性。第一作者性别或女性作者比例对指南质量没有影响。需要进一步进行系统的、定额驱动的赞助,以促进麻醉学指南中的性别平等、多样性和包容性。

相似文献

2
Trends in Gender of Authors of Patient Blood Management Publications.患者血液管理出版物作者的性别趋势。
Anesth Analg. 2024 Jun 1;138(6):1267-1274. doi: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000006749. Epub 2023 Dec 28.
6
Trends in Authorship in Anesthesiology Journals.麻醉学期刊的作者趋势。
Anesth Analg. 2019 Jul;129(1):306-310. doi: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000003949.

本文引用的文献

4
Representation of Women as Editors in Anesthesiology Journals.麻醉学期刊中女性编辑的代表性。
Anesth Analg. 2022 May 1;134(5):956-963. doi: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000005881.
8
The Lancet Group's commitments to gender equity and diversity.《柳叶刀》集团对性别平等和多元化的承诺。
Lancet. 2019 Aug 10;394(10197):452-453. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)31797-0. Epub 2019 Aug 8.
10
Diversity improves performance and outcomes.多样性提高绩效和结果。
J Natl Med Assoc. 2019 Aug;111(4):383-392. doi: 10.1016/j.jnma.2019.01.006. Epub 2019 Feb 11.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验