Sex Differences in Academic Rank, Scholarly Productivity, National Institutes of Health Funding, and Industry Ties Among Academic Cornea Specialists in the United States

Chiam, Mckenzee; Camacci, Mona Lotfipour; Lehman, Erik; Chen, Michael C.; Vora, Gargi K.; Pantanelli, Seth

doi:10.1016/j.ajo.2020.09.011

Cited by 7 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Most studies (57 [62.6%]) were published in or after 2018 (eTable 1 in the Supplement). Eighty-seven studies were cross-sectional, and 4 studies were cohort. In the risk of bias assessment, 12 had low risk of bias (good), 68 were moderate (fair), and 11 were high (poor) (eTables 2 and 3 in the Supplement).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Female pediatric ophthalmologists surpassed males in NIH funding values in late (29 or more years) career (mean funding, $11.7 million [n = 6] vs $1.4 million for males [n = 19]; P = .02) . An association between sex and the median amount of NIH awards granted to cornea specialists was not identified, despite most female cornea specialists being in early stages of their careers . Sex differences among 21 531 ophthalmologists in 2014 found that industry payments were less for females (255 of 4352 [6%] vs 1263 of 17 179 [7.4%]; P < .001) .…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Of 4077 retrieved studies, we reviewed 154 full-text articles, with 91 eligible studies published between 1995 and 2022 (Figure). Most studies (57 [62.6%]) were published in or after 2018 (eTable 1 in the Supplement).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Eighty-seven studies were cross-sectional, and 4 studies were cohort. In the risk of bias assessment, 12 had low risk of bias (good), 68 were moderate (fair), and 11 were high (poor) (eTables 2 and 3 in the Supplement). Studies were organized by themes across career stages.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Sex Disparities in Ophthalmology From Training Through Practice

Rousta,

Hussein,

Kohly

2024

JAMA Ophthalmol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ImportanceSex-based research in medicine has revealed inequities against females on almost every metric at almost every career stage; ophthalmology is no exception.ObjectiveTo systematically review the experiences of females in ophthalmology (FiO) from training through practice in high-income countries (HICs).Evidence ReviewA systematic review of English-language studies, published between January 1990 and May 2022, relating to FiO in HICs was performed. PubMed, MEDLINE, and Embase electronic databases were searched, as well as the Journal of Academic Ophthalmology as it was not indexed in the searched databases. Studies were organized by theme at each career stage, starting in medical school when an interest in ophthalmology is expressed, and extending up to retirement.FindingsA total of 91 studies, 87 cross-sectional and 4 cohort, were included. In medical school, mentorship and recruitment of female students into ophthalmology was influenced by sex bias, with fewer females identifying with ophthalmologist mentors and gender stereotypes perpetuated in reference letters written by both male and female referees. In residency, females had unequal learning opportunities, with lower surgical case volumes than male trainees and fewer females pursued fellowships in lucrative subspecialties. In practice, female ophthalmologists had lower incomes, less academic success, and poorer representation in leadership roles. Female ophthalmologists had a greater scholarly impact factor than their male counterparts, but this was only after approximately 30 years of publication experience. Pervasive throughout all stages of training and practice was the experience of greater sexual harassment among females from both patients and colleagues. Despite these disparities, some studies found that females reported equal overall career satisfaction rating with males in ophthalmology, whereas others suggested higher burnout rates.Conclusions and RelevanceOphthalmology is approaching sex parity, however, the increase in the proportion of females in ophthalmology had not translated to an increase in female representation in leadership positions. Sex disparities persisted across many domains including recruitment, training, practice patterns, academic productivity, and income. Interventions may improve sex equity in the field.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Sex Disparities in Ophthalmology From Training Through Practice

Rousta,

Hussein,

Kohly

2024

JAMA Ophthalmol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Assessment criteria for performance in academia include academic ranks, peer-reviewed publications, salary, and funding ( 3 , 16 , 17 ). The number of peer-reviewed publications has been especially important in climbing up the ladder of academic ranks ( 9 , 18 – 20 ) and securing funding for principal investigators.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Extent of Gender Gap in Citations in Ophthalmology Literature

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeTo investigate the severity and causes of gender imbalance in the counts of ophthalmology citations.MethodsThe PubMed database was searched to identify cited papers that were published in four journals (Prog Retin Eye Res, Ophthalmology, JAMA Ophthalmol, and Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci) between August 2015 and July 2020, and those that referenced these cited papers by 2021 July (i.e., citing papers). The gender category of a given paper is defined by the gender of the first and last author (MM, FM, MF, and FF; M means male and F means female). A generalized additive model to predict the expected proportion was fitted. The difference between the observed proportion and expected proportion of citations of a paper’s gender category was the primary outcome.ResultsThe proportion of female-led (MF and FF) papers slightly increased from 27% in 2015 to 30% in 2020. MM, FM, MF, and FF papers were cited as −9.3, −1.5, 13.0, and 23.9% more than expected, respectively. MM papers cited 13.9% more male-led (MM and FM) papers than female-led papers, and FF papers cited 33.5% fewer male-led papers than female-led papers. The difference between the observed proportion and expected proportion of MM citing papers within male-led and female-led cited papers grew at a rate of 0.13 and 0.67% per year.ConclusionThe high frequency of citations of female-led papers might narrow the gender gap in the citation count within ophthalmology. These findings show that papers by female-led are less common, so the gender gap might still exist even with their high citation count.

show abstract