Schluchter Helena, Andel Dorothea, De Bettignies Albert, Andel Harald, Schaden Eva
Clinical Division of General Anaesthesia and Intensive Care Medicine, Department of Anaesthesia, Intensive Care Medicine and Pain Medicine, Medical University of Vienna, 1090 Vienna, Austria.
Ludwig Boltzmann Institute Digital Health and Patient Safety, 1180 Vienna, Austria.
J Clin Med. 2025 Aug 21;14(16):5891. doi: 10.3390/jcm14165891.
: Despite an increase in the number of women medical graduates, gender disparities persist in academic anaesthesiology. Women in medical science face challenges in publications, research funding, editorial board membership, and peer review, and they remain under-represented, particularly in senior authorship and leadership positions. : This repeated cross-sectional bibliometric analysis examined global trends and cross-country differences in the representation of women as first, co-, and senior authors of peer-reviewed articles published in five high-impact anaesthesiology journals over three decades, with a focus on developments in recent years. Gender was assigned to authors' first names algorithmically in two steps (Gender API and NamSor). : A total of 7571 publications were analysed, comprising 37,738 authors. Women constituted 11,732 (31.09%) authorships in total, and men consistently accounted for a substantial majority among authors ( < 0.001). Despite a significant overall increase in authorship by women-peaking in 2022 at 590 (36.88%) first authors, 2245 (37.85%) co-authors, and 402 (28.05%) senior authors (all < 0.001)-stagnation was observed in recent years, with no significant changes for first and co-authors after 2016 ( > 0.05). Country-level analysis revealed few significant differences, with Japan consistently reporting the lowest percentages of women authors. : This study underscores persistent gender disparities in academic anaesthesiology, despite a moderate increase in authorship by women over three decades. Gender disparity remains a global issue, and the recent stagnation highlights the necessity for more comprehensive efforts and innovative strategies to foster a more inclusive research community in academic anaesthesiology.
尽管医学专业毕业的女性人数有所增加，但学术麻醉学领域的性别差异依然存在。从事医学科学的女性在发表论文、获得研究资金、担任编辑委员会成员以及同行评审方面面临挑战，她们在这些方面的代表性仍然不足，尤其是在资深作者和领导职位上。：这项重复的横断面文献计量分析研究了三十年来在五种高影响力麻醉学杂志上发表的同行评审文章中，女性作为第一作者、共同作者和资深作者的全球趋势和国家间差异，重点关注近年来的发展情况。通过两步算法（Gender API和NamSor）根据作者的名字来确定性别。：总共分析了7571篇出版物，涉及37738位作者。女性总共占11732个（31.09%）作者身份，男性在作者中一直占绝大多数（<0.001）。尽管女性作者身份总体上有显著增加——2022年达到峰值，第一作者为590位（36.88%），共同作者为2245位（37.85%），资深作者为402位（28.05%）（均<0.001）——但近年来出现了停滞，2016年之后第一作者和共同作者没有显著变化（>0.05）。国家层面的分析显示差异不大，日本一直报告女性作者比例最低。：这项研究强调了学术麻醉学中持续存在的性别差异，尽管三十年来女性作者身份有适度增加。性别差异仍然是一个全球性问题，最近的停滞凸显了采取更全面的努力和创新策略以在学术麻醉学中培育更具包容性的研究群体的必要性。
