Academic medicine's glass ceiling: Author's gender in top three medical research journals impacts probability of future publication success.

INTRODUCTION: In December 2017, Lancet called for gender inequality investigations. Holding other factors constant, trends over time for significant author (i.e., first, second, last or any of these authors) publications were examined for the three highest-impact medical research journals (i.e., New England Journal of Medicine [NEJM], Journal of the American Medical Association [JAMA], and Lancet). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using randomly sampled 2002-2019 MEDLINE original publications (n = 1,080; 20/year/journal), significant author-based and publication-based characteristics were extracted. Gender assignment used internet-based biographies, pronouns, first names, and photographs. Adjusting for author-specific characteristics and multiple publications per author, generalized estimating equations tested for first, second, and last significant author gender disparities. RESULTS: Compared to 37.23% of 2002 - 2019 U.S. medical school full-time faculty that were women, women's first author publication rates (26.82% overall, 15.83% NEJM, 29.38% Lancet, and 35.39% JAMA; all p < 0.0001) were lower. No improvements over time occurred in women first authorship rates. Women first authors had lower Web of Science citation counts and co-authors/collaborating author counts, less frequently held M.D. or multiple doctoral-level degrees, less commonly published clinical trials or cardiovascular-related projects, but more commonly were North American-based and studied North American-based patients (all p < 0.05). Women second and last authors were similarly underrepresented. Compared to men, women first authors had lower multiple publication rates in these top journals (p < 0.001). Same gender first/last authors resulted in higher multiple publication rates within these top three journals (p < 0.001). DISCUSSION: Since 2002, this authorship "gender disparity chasm" has been tolerated across all these top medical research journals. Despite Lancet's 2017 call to arms, furthermore, the author-based gender disparities have not changed for these top medical research journals - even in recent times. Co-author gender alignment may reduce future gender inequities, but this promising strategy requires further investigation.

Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting Transit Time Flow Measurement: Graft Patency and Clinical Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: This subanalysis of the Randomized On-Off Bypass (ROOBY) trial examined transit time flow measurement (TTFM) use and its impact on graft patency and long-term clinical outcomes after coronary artery bypass graft surgery. METHODS: Use of TTFM for ROOBY centers and surgeons was assessed. Comparative patient outcomes based on TTFM use included 1-year graft patency and 1-year and 5-year major adverse cardiac events: all-cause mortality, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and revascularization (percutaneous coronary intervention or repeat coronary artery bypass graft surgery). RESULTS: Transit time flow measurement was used in 1067 patients (TTFM group) and not used in 501 patients (non-TTFM group); of the TTFM group, median percentage TTFM use was 79% (interquartile range, 41% to 98%) among 18 Veterans Affairs Medical Centers, and 74% (interquartile range, 13% to 98%) among 48 surgeons. Patients were comparable in age (63 ± 8.5 years TTFM vs 62 ± 8 years non-TTFM, P = .30) and estimated 30-day mortality risk (1.8 ± 1.7 TTFM vs 1.9 non-TTFM, P = .53). One-year FitzGibbon A patency was 83% (1600 of 1988 grafts) for TTFM assessed grafts and 78% (629 of 803) for non-TTFM assessed grafts (P < .01). Fewer TTFM patients had an occluded graft (29%, vs 38% non-TTFM; P = .01). Comparing TTFM patients with non-TTFM patients, 5-year major adverse cardiac event rates were 30% vs 25% (P = .06). Individual component rates were 14% vs 11% for death (P = .06), 12% vs 8.8% for myocardial infarction (P = .07), and 13% vs 12% for revascularization (P = .62). CONCLUSIONS: The association of TTFM use with graft patency and clinical outcome is uncertain. Future randomized studies that account for patient risk factors and practice variation would help address this knowledge gap.