High-impact Medical Journals Research Articles

Design and reporting of phase III oncology trials with prospective biomarker validation.

Phase III trials with prospective biomarker validation are essential to drug development in the era of personalized oncology. However, concerns have emerged regarding the design and reporting of phase III trials with prospective biomarker validation. We searched MEDLINE for phase III oncology trials with prospective biomarker validation published in high-impact medical journals from 2011 to 2020. Information regarding trial design and reporting were extracted. Descriptive methods were used to summarize the results. We identified 45 phase III trials with prospective biomarker validation. There was a trend for increasing use of biomarker validation phase III trials (from 1 trial in 2011 to 12 trials in 2020). For 39 (86.7%) trials, results in biomarker-negative population were either listed as an exploratory subgroup analysis (62.2%) or not mentioned in the methods (24.4%). Twenty-one (46.7%) trials were originally designed without biomarker validation but were then apparently modified to incorporate prospective biomarker validation after trial commencement, albeit only 15 (33.3%) trials reported this change. Treatment effect and primary outcome values in biomarker-negative patients were not reported in 24.4% and 40.0% trials, respectively. For 18 trials with statistically significant results in the overall population, only 7 trials reported a hazard ratio less than 0.8 in the biomarker-negative population. Although biomarker validation in phase III trials have been increasingly used in the past decade, issues regarding changes in trial design after commencement without disclosure, underreporting of results in biomarker-negative groups, and recommending treatment in biomarker negative groups despite modest effects require substantial improvement.

Analysis of Proportion of Female Editors-in-Chief in Major Immunology Medical Journals

Editors-in-chief (EIC) of medical journals have the paramount responsibility of directing the dissemination of peer-reviewed medical information and influencing contemporary clinical practices. While previous literature has assessed gender differences in the allergy and immunology physician workforce [1], the percentage of female EICs leading immunology medical journals remains unknown. In this cross-sectional study, we ascertained the proportion of high-impact immunology medical journals with female EICs and whether there was an association between impact factor and EIC gender.

GIE Editorial Board Top 10: advances in GI endoscopy in 2021

The 9-member Editorial Board of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy performed a systematic literature search of original articles published during 2021 in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy and 10 other high-impact medical and gastroenterology journals on endoscopy-related topics. Votes from each editorial board member were tallied to identify a consensus list of the 10 most significant topic areas in GI endoscopy over the calendar year of study, with a focus on 3 criteria: significance, novelty, and global impact on clinical practice. The 10 areas identified collectively represent advances in the following endoscopic topics: colonoscopy optimization, bariatric endoscopy, endoscopic needle sampling and drainage, peroral endoscopic myotomy, endoscopic defect closure, meeting systemic challenges in endoscopic training and practice, endohepatology, FNA versus fine-needle biopsy sampling, endoscopic mucosal and submucosal procedures, and cold snare polypectomy. Each board member contributed a summary of important articles relevant to 1 to 2 of the consensus topic areas, leading to a collective summary that is presented in this document of the "top 10" endoscopic advances of2021.

Reporting of data on participant ethnicity and socioeconomic status in high-impact medical journals: a targeted literature review

ObjectivesTo assess the frequency of reporting of ethnicity (or ‘race’) and socioeconomic status (SES) indicators in high-impact journals.DesignTargeted literature review.Data sourcesThe 10 highest ranked general medical journals using Google scholar...

Gender Inequalities in Citations of Articles Published in High-Impact General Medical Journals: a Cross-Sectional Study

BackgroundBesides the number of publications, the number of citations is another key metric often used to compare researchers with each other. While women researchers tend to have fewer publications than their men colleagues, the data is scarce for the number of citations. We aimed to determine whether there is a gender gap in citations.MethodsWe used Web of Science to retrieve the number of citations per year for all research articles and reviews published between January 2015 and December 2019 in fourteen high-impact general medical journals (impact factor > 5). We used Gender API to identify the gender of the first/last authors. We compared the results by gender using multivariable negative binomial regressions (adjusting for intra-cluster correlations within journals).ResultsThe gender of the first/last author was determined for 13,218/13,350 (99%) and 11,894/12,026 (99%) articles, respectively. The proportion of women among first/last authors was 40% and 29%, respectively. The median number of citations per year was 5 (IQR = 11.3) for women and 6.8 (IQR = 17.8) for men for first authors (IRR = 1.5 [95% CI = 1.3–1.8], p value < 0.001), and 6 (IQR = 12.4) and 7.5 (IQR = 17.4) for last authors (IRR = 1.3 [95% CI = 1.2–1.5], p value < 0.001). Articles whose first and last authors were women were the least cited and those whose first and last authors were men were the most cited.ConclusionIn this cross-sectional study, we found that articles authored by women were cited less often than those authored by men. Further studies are needed to explore the reasons for these gender differences in article citations.

Modeling current practices in critical care comparative effectiveness research

Objective: To determine whether contemporaneous practices are adequately represented in recent critical care comparative effectiveness research studies. Design: All critical care comparative effectiveness research trials published in the New England Journal of Medicine from April 2019 to March 2020 were identified. To examine studies published in other high impact medical journals during the same period, such trials were subsequently also identified in the Journal of the American Medical Association and The Lancet. All cited sources were reviewed, and the medical literature was searched to find studies describing contemporary practices. Then, the designated control group or the comparable therapies studied were examined to determine if they represented contemporaneous critical care practices as described in the medical literature. Results: Twenty-five of 332 randomised clinical trials published in these three journals during this 1-year period described critical care comparative effectiveness research that met our inclusion criteria. Seventeen characterised current practices before enrolment (using surveys, observational studies and guidelines) and then incorporated current practices into one or more study arm. In the other eight, usual care arms appeared insufficient. Four of these trials randomly assigned patients to one of two fixed approaches at either end of a range of usually titrated care. However, due to randomisation, different subgroups within each arm received care that was inappropriate for their specific clinical conditions. In the other four of these trials, common practices influencing treatment choice were not reflected in the trial design, despite a prior effort to characterise usual care. Conclusion: One-third of critical care comparative effectiveness research trials published in widely read medical journals during a recent year did not include a designated control arm or comparable therapies representative of contemporary practices. Failure to incorporate contemporary practices into critical care comparative effectiveness trials appears to be a widespread design weakness.

Clinical Update in Women's Heart Disease.

The goal in selecting these recent articles was to help identify literature that may change the clinical practice of women's health for practitioners in the primary care setting. Articles were identified by reviewing high-impact medical and women's health journals, national guidelines, ACP JournalWise, and NEJM Journal Watch. In this clinical update, we selected recent publications relevant to the prevention, risk assessment, and diagnosis of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in women. Breastfeeding now has data suggesting a robust reduction in subsequent CVD, and migraine with aura and severe and early- and late-onset hot flashes can now be considered risk factors for CVD. The decision to initiate menopausal hormone therapy is influenced by estimation of underlying vascular risk, and new data suggest that CVD risk scores are more accurate in predicting CVD risk than the traditionally used age and years since menopause and should be incorporated into counseling. Finally, new data support the growing belief that breast arterial calcification on mammography is a promising noninvasive marker that can enhance CVD risk prediction in women.

Outcome reporting bias in nephrology randomized clinical trials: Examining outcomes represented by graphical illustrations

BackgroundOutcome reporting bias (ORB) is widely reported in the medical literature, but the contribution from published graphical illustrations is unknown. The aim of this study was to investigate the occurrence of ORB in contemporary nephrology clinical trials relating to the choice of outcomes reported through graphical illustrations. MethodsAn observational study was conducted using nephrology clinical trials searched from five high-impact medical journals from 2015 to 2020. Eligible trials reported a phase 2, 3 or 4 trial, contained at least one published outcome graphical illustration and were registered on a clinical trial registry. The primary outcome was the occurrence of ORB based on the choice of graphical illustrations in published trial manuscripts, deemed to be present if a graphical illustration displayed a secondary or unregistered outcome ahead of a trial's primary outcome, or if any unregistered trial outcome was presented as a graphical illustration. ResultsIn 75 eligible clinical trials, the primary outcome for ORB was present in 60% of the trials (n = 45). Occurrence of the primary outcome did not differ significantly based on trial sample size, funding model, trial phase, individual medical journal or publication year. An unregistered trial outcome was graphically illustrated in 93% (n = 42) of those clinical trials with ORB present. ConclusionOutcome reporting bias based on the choice of graphical illustration is common, driven primarily by graphical illustration of unregistered trial outcomes. More appropriate choice of outcomes for graphical illustrations by authors, coupled with both increased enforcement of CONSORT guidelines by medical journals and specific guidelines for graphical illustrations choice, are desirable to address these findings.

Closing the gender gap: building a successful career and leadership in research as a female gastroenterologist

The pillars of academic promotion include clinical service, research, teaching, and public engagement. Although women are more likely than men to pursue a career in academia after a gastroenterology fellowship (40% of women vs 25% of men choose this path), gender disparity in research and academic leadership remains. For example, only one woman was appointed assistant professor in all gastroenterology and hepatology divisions of university hospital centres in France in 2017–18, whereas ten men were appointed full professors and seven were appointed associate professors in that same period. 1 Aubart FC Roeser A Costedoat-Chalumeau N Papo T Piette J-C Women in internal medicine academic positions in France. Eur J Intern Med. 2019; 64: e18-e29 Summary Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (1) Google Scholar Only 20% of faculty and 25% of full professors in divisions of gastroenterology in the USA are women; this gender disparity has not diminished over the past 35 years and is similar across basic science and clinical departments. 2 Richter KP Clark L Wick JA et al. Women physicians and promotion in academic medicine. N Engl J Med. 2020; 383: 2148-2157 Crossref PubMed Scopus (103) Google Scholar Even though the representation of female physicians as first authors (42%) and senior (23%) authors of original research published in US gastroenterology journals has increased over the past two decades, the proportion of female senior authors increased at a slower rate than female first authors and was lower than expected based on the proportion of women in academia. 3 Long MT Leszczynski A Thompson KD Wasan SK Calderwood AH Female authorship in major academic gastroenterology journals: a look over 20 years. Gastrointest Endosc. 2015; 81: 1440-1447 Summary Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (78) Google Scholar , 4 Bhatia S Eluri S Kim E Angle H Dellon E Shaheen N Trends in female authorship of high impact publications in gastroenterology journals, 1997–2017. Am J Gastroenterol. 2018; 113: S652-S653 Google Scholar Similarly, representation of female first authors in high-impact European journals has increased since 1994, but it has plateaued in recent years. 5 Filardo G da Graca B Sass DM Pollock BD Smith EB Martinez MA-M Trends and comparison of female first authorship in high impact medical journals: observational study (1994–2014). BMJ. 2016; 352: i847 Crossref PubMed Scopus (271) Google Scholar In addition, the proportion of invited women speakers at major national gastroenterological meetings remains low: for example, at the British Society of Gastroenterology meeting in 2014, only 26% of speakers were female; at United European Gastroenterology week 2019, only 28% of speakers were female; and at Digestive Disease Week 2019, only 33% of speakers were female. 6 Brooks AJ Taylor EJ Arthurs EA et al. Gender differences in leadership, workforce and scholarly presentation within a national society: a gastroenterology perspective. Frontline Gastroenterol. 2019; 10: 2-6 Crossref PubMed Scopus (2) Google Scholar , 7 Khan Z Rukhshan R Bhatt A et al. persistent speaker gender gap at the premier digestive disease event. Dig Dis Sci. 2022; 67: 390-396 Crossref PubMed Scopus (1) Google Scholar , 8 Nakov R Alboraie M Tiniakos D UEG Equality and Diversity Task ForceHow to identify, encourage, and support suitable candidates for leading roles in scientific societies: the UEG experience. United European Gastroenterol J. 2021; 9: 874-876 Crossref PubMed Scopus (2) Google Scholar How can female gastroenterologists effectively build a successful career in research and overcome these barriers to achieving leadership and academic advancement?

Gender Disparity in Publication Associated with Editor-in-Chief Gender: a Cross-sectional Study of Fifty High-Impact Medical Journals.

Gender Disparity in Publication Associated with Editor-in-Chief Gender: a Cross-sectional Study of Fifty High-Impact Medical Journals.

766 12-year Analysis of Gender Disparity in Authorship of Peer-Reviewed Burn and Wound Care Literature

IntroductionThe importance of gender equity and gender representation in academic publications has long been emphasized in medicine. It has been established that women represent a smaller proportion of primary and senior authors in high-impact medical journals than men and that original research articles written by women as primary and senior authors are less frequently sited than those authored by men. Currently, there is limited data evaluating whether this gender bias is present in plastic surgery and burn publications. We used bibliometric analysis of original research publications to analyze gender bias against women in one burn journal.MethodsUsing the journal, Burns, we conducted a bibliometric analysis of research publications from 2009 to 2020. A gender determining application was used to characterize the gender of the first and senior author. Ratios of male:male, female:male, male:female, and female:female were obtained and analyzed.ResultsOf the 1677 publications included, 40% have female first authors and 25.5% had female senior authors. Male:male authorships had the highest number of publications. Female:female authorship had the lowest number of publications of all the other ratios from 2009-2012, however there was a steep increase in 2013 in which male:female authorship had the lowest number of publications. Male senior authorship was associated with 2.9-fold increase in male first authorship [OR=2.99(95% CI 2.39, 3.76); p < 0.0001).ConclusionsFemale representation in senior authorship positions in burn and wound care publications is increasing, however is still far from reaching gender parity. By analyzing authorship ratios by gender, we recommend a new way to evaluate gender disparity in burn and wound care academia.

Year in Review: Synopsis of Selected Articles in Neuroanesthesia and Neurocritical Care from 2021

AbstractThis review is a synopsis of selected articles from neuroscience, neuroanesthesia, and neurocritical care from 2021 (January–December 2021). The journals reviewed include anesthesia journals, critical care medicine journals, neurology, and neurosurgical journals as well as high-impact medical journals such as the Lancet, Journal of American Medical Association, New England Journal of Medicine, and Stroke. This summary of important articles will serve to update the knowledge of anesthesiologists and other perioperative physicians who provide care to neurosurgical and neurocritical care patients. In addition, some of the important narrative reviews that are of interest to neuroanesthesiologists are also listed.

The Impact of Industry Funding on Randomized Controlled Trials of Biologic Therapies.

Background: There has been substantial interest from the pharmaceutical industry to study and develop new biologic agents. Previous studies outside of the biologics field have demonstrated that industry funding has the potential to impact the design and findings of clinical trials. The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of industry funding on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that investigated the efficacy of biologic therapies. Methods: A review of all RCTs involving biologic therapies in top impact factor medical journals from January 2018 to December 2020 was performed. The relationship between industry funding and the presence of statistically significant primary outcomes and the use of active comparators were analyzed. Results: Among the 157 RCTs included, 120 (76%) were industry funded and 37 (24%) declared no industry funding. Industry-funded studies were significantly more likely to report a statistically significant positive primary outcome compared to studies without industry funding (85% vs. 67%, χ2 = 5.867, p = 0.015) and were significantly more likely to utilize placebo or no comparator than non-industry-funded trials (78% vs. 49%, χ2 = 4.430, p = 0.035). Conclusions: Industry-funded trials investigating biologic therapies are more likely to yield statistically significant positive outcomes and use placebo comparators when compared to non-industry-funded biologic therapy trials in high-impact medical journals.

A multivariate model for successful publication of intensive care medicine randomized controlled trials in the highest impact factor journals: the SCOTI score

BackgroundCritical care randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are often published in high-impact journals, whether general journals [the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), The Lancet, the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA)] or critical care journals [Intensive Care Medicine (ICM), the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine (AJRCCM), Critical Care Medicine (CCM)]. As rejection occurs in up to 97% of cases, it might be appropriate to assess pre-submission probability of being published. The objective of this study was to develop and internally validate a simplified score predicting whether an ongoing trial stands a chance of being published in high-impact general journals.MethodsA cohort of critical care RCTs published between 1999 and 2018 in the three highest impact medical journals (NEJM, The Lancet, JAMA) or the three highest impact critical care journals (ICM, AJRCCM, CCM) was split into two samples (derivation cohort, validation cohort) to develop and internally validate the simplified score. Primary outcome was journal of publication assessed as high-impact general journal (NEJM, The Lancet, JAMA) or critical care journal (ICM, AJRCCM, CCM).ResultsA total of 968 critical care RCTs were included in the predictive cohort and split into a derivation cohort (n = 510) and a validation cohort (n = 458). In the derivation cohort, the sample size (P value < 0.001), the number of centers involved (P value = 0.01), mortality as primary outcome (P value = 0.002) or a composite item including mortality as primary outcome (P value = 0.004), and topic [ventilation (P value < 0.001) or miscellaneous (P value < 0.001)] were independent factors predictive of publication in high-impact general journals, compared to high-impact critical care journals. The SCOTI score (Sample size, Centers, Outcome, Topic, and International score) was developed with an area under the ROC curve of 0.84 (95% Confidence Interval, 0.80–0.88) in validation by split sample.ConclusionsThe SCOTI score, developed and validated by split sample, accurately predicts the chances of a critical care RCT being published in high-impact general journals, compared to high-impact critical care journals.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on publication dynamics and non-COVID-19 research production

BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic has severely affected health systems and medical research worldwide but its impact on the global publication dynamics and non-COVID-19 research has not been measured. We hypothesized that the COVID-19 pandemic may have impacted the scientific production of non-COVID-19 research.MethodsWe conducted a comprehensive meta-research on studies (original articles, research letters and case reports) published between 01/01/2019 and 01/01/2021 in 10 high-impact medical and infectious disease journals (New England Journal of Medicine, Lancet, Journal of the American Medical Association, Nature Medicine, British Medical Journal, Annals of Internal Medicine, Lancet Global Health, Lancet Public Health, Lancet Infectious Disease and Clinical Infectious Disease). For each publication, we recorded publication date, publication type, number of authors, whether the publication was related to COVID-19, whether the publication was based on a case series, and the number of patients included in the study if the publication was based on a case report or a case series. We estimated the publication dynamics with a locally estimated scatterplot smoothing method. A Natural Language Processing algorithm was designed to calculate the number of authors for each publication. We simulated the number of non-COVID-19 studies that could have been published during the pandemic by extrapolating the publication dynamics of 2019 to 2020, and comparing the expected number to the observed number of studies.ResultsAmong the 22,525 studies assessed, 6319 met the inclusion criteria, of which 1022 (16.2%) were related to COVID-19 research. A dramatic increase in the number of publications in general journals was observed from February to April 2020 from a weekly median number of publications of 4.0 (IQR: 2.8–5.5) to 19.5 (IQR: 15.8–24.8) (p < 0.001), followed afterwards by a pattern of stability with a weekly median number of publications of 10.0 (IQR: 6.0–14.0) until December 2020 (p = 0.045 in comparison with April). Two prototypical editorial strategies were found: 1) journals that maintained the volume of non-COVID-19 publications while integrating COVID-19 research and thus increased their overall scientific production, and 2) journals that decreased the volume of non-COVID-19 publications while integrating COVID-19 publications. We estimated using simulation models that the COVID pandemic was associated with a 18% decrease in the production of non-COVID-19 research. We also found a significant change of the publication type in COVID-19 research as compared with non-COVID-19 research illustrated by a decrease in the number of original articles, (47.9% in COVID-19 publications vs 71.3% in non-COVID-19 publications, p < 0.001). Last, COVID-19 publications showed a higher number of authors, especially for case reports with a median of 9.0 authors (IQR: 6.0–13.0) in COVID-19 publications, compared to a median of 4.0 authors (IQR: 3.0–6.0) in non-COVID-19 publications (p < 0.001).ConclusionIn this meta-research gathering publications from high-impact medical journals, we have shown that the dramatic rise in COVID-19 publications was accompanied by a substantial decrease of non-COVID-19 research.Meta-research registrationhttps://osf.io/9vtzp/.

Science, Medicine, and the Anesthesiologist

Science, Medicine, and the Anesthesiologist

Temporal trends in the inclusion of patient-reported outcomes in heart failure randomized trials published in high-impact medical journals: a systematic bibliometric review

Abstract Background Patient reported outcomes (PROs) are important measures of health, particularly in symptomatic conditions such as heart failure (HF), and regulatory agencies have encouraged their collection in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Purpose To assess temporal trends in the inclusion of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in heart failure (HF) randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in high-impact medical journals, explore trial characteristics associated with inclusion of PROs, and describe the quality of PRO reporting in HF RCTs. Methods We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL for studies published between January 1, 2000 and July 17, 2020. We included RCTs published in journals with impact factor ≥10. We assessed temporal trends using the Jonckheere-Terpstra test and conducted multivariable logistic regression analysis to explore trial characteristics independently associated with inclusion of PROs. We assessed the quality of PRO reporting using the Consolidated Standards for Trial Reporting PRO extension statement. Results We identified 12,342 articles, of which 417 RCTs met inclusion criteria. PROs were included in 224 RCTs (53.7%, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 48.8%-58.6%), of which 44 (19.6%) reported PRO as primary or co-primary endpoint. The proportion of RCTs with PROs increased significantly between 2000–2003 (37.4%) and 2016–2020 (65.1%) (p&amp;lt;0.001). PROs had higher odds of inclusion in RCTs that were multicenter (odds ratio [OR]: 1.95; 95% CI: 1.05–3.64; p=0.036); medium-sized (n=51–250) (OR: 2.29; 95% CI: 1.24–4.23; p=0.008); coordinated in in Central and South America (OR: 6.79; 95% CI: 1.34–34.36; p=0.021); and assessed health services (OR: 4.21; 1.97–8.98; p&amp;lt;0.001), device / surgical (OR: 6.24; 95% CI 3.05–12.80; p&amp;lt;0.001), or exercise and rehabilitation interventions (OR: 3.98; 95% CI 1.59–9.97; p=0.003). A majority (54.9%) of the 224 RCTs reported four or less of the eleven CONSORT-PRO items. The median number of CONSORT-PRO items reported was 4 (interquartile range [IQR] 3–6 items per trial), with improved reporting in trials with PRO as primary or co-primary endpoint. Conclusions PROs are included in in just over half of HF RCTs, with an increased reporting of PROs between 2000 and 2020. Large, pharmacotherapy trials conducted in North America and Europe were less likely to include PROs. The quality of PRO reporting in HF RCTs was modest, with trials most often reporting four of eleven CONSORT-PRO items. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding sources: Public grant(s) – National budget only. Main funding source(s): Canadian Institutes of Health Research

The frequency of medical reversals in a cross-sectional analysis of high-impact oncology journals, 2009\u20132018

BackgroundIdentifying ineffective practices that have been used in oncology is important in reducing wasted resources and harm. We sought to examine the prevalence of practices that are being used but have been shown in RCTs to be ineffective (medical reversals) in published oncology studies.MethodsWe cross-sectionally analyzed studies published in three high-impact oncology medical journals (2009–2018). We abstracted data relating to the frequency and characterization of medical reversals.ResultsOf the 64 oncology reversals, medications (44%) represented the most common intervention type (39% were targeted). Fourteen (22%) were funded by pharmaceutical/industry only and 56% were funded by an organization other than pharmaceutical/industry. The median number of years that the practice had been in use prior to the reversal study was 9 years (range 1–50 years).ConclusionHere we show that oncology reversals most often involve the administration of medications, have been practiced for years, and are often identified through studies funded by non-industry organizations.

Gender Disparity in Citations in High-Impact Journal Articles

Women are less likely to be promoted and hold leadership positions in academic medicine. How often academic articles are cited is a key measure of scholarly impact and frequently assessed for professional advancement; however, it is unknown whether peer-reviewed articles written by men and women are cited differently. To evaluate whether academic articles from high-impact medical journals written by men and women are cited differently. In this cross-sectional study of all original research and commentary articles from 5 high-impact medical journals (Annals of Internal Medicine, British Medical Journal, JAMA, JAMA Internal Medicine, and The New England Journal of Medicine) from 2015 to 2018, the gender of the primary and senior authors of each article were identified using an online database, and the number of times each article has been cited was identified using Web of Science. The number of citations by primary and senior author gender were then compared. Data were analyzed from July 2020 to April 2021. Primary and senior authors' genders. Number of citations per article. Among 5554 articles, women wrote 1975 (35.6%) as primary author and 1273 of 4940 (25.8%) as senior author. Original research articles written by women as primary authors had fewer median (interquartile range) citations than articles written by men as primary authors (36 [17-82] citations vs 54 [22-141] citations; P < .001) and senior authors (37 [17-93] citations vs 51 [20-128] citations; P < .001). Articles written by women as both primary and senior authors had approximately half as many median (interquartile range) citations as those authored by men as both primary and senior authors (33 [15-68] citations vs 59 [23-149] citations; P < .001). Differences in citations remained in each year of the study and were less pronounced among commentary articles. In this study, articles written by women in high-impact medical journals had fewer citations than those written by men, particularly when women wrote together as primary and senior authors. These differences may have important consequences for the professional success of women and achieving gender equity in academic medicine.

Gender disparity between authors in leading medical journals during the COVID-19 pandemic: a cross-sectional review

ObjectivesEvaluate gender differences in authorship of COVID-19 articles in high-impact medical journals compared with other topics.DesignCross-sectional review.Data sourcesMedline database.Eligibility criteriaArticles published from 1 January to 31 December 2020 in the...