Gender Disparity in Authorship of Peer-Reviewed Medical Publications.

BACKGROUND: Women are underrepresented in medicine despite increases in the percentage of female physicians. It is unknown if academic productivity contributes to these differences. We sought to determine whether gender disparity exists in peer-reviewed literature authorship in the United States from 2000 to 2017. METHODS: Medical and surgical peer-reviewed research articles from the United States were retrospectively reviewed using PubMed from 2000 to 2017. Manuscripts were randomly selected within 4 different time periods: 2000-2005, 2006-2010, 2011-2015 and 2016-2017. The gender of the first and last authors was determined and the journal's impact factor recorded. The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) and Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) databases were used to determine the percent of female residents, attendings and academic leadership positions. Primary outcome was the prevalence of female authors in peer-reviewed literature. Secondary aims were differences in disparity in medical versus surgical specialties, differences in publications' impact factor among gender and the association between gender and mentoring. RESULTS: Within 1,120 articles reviewed, 31.6% of first authors and 19.4% of last authors were women. Female first and last authors increased over time and authorship was proportional to the number of women in the studied specialties at that specific time period (P = 0.78). There was no difference in the journal's impact factors between gender (P = 0.64). On subgroup analysis of medical and surgical subspecialties, results remained unchanged. CONCLUSIONS: Women publish research at a rate proportional to the number of academic female physicians. Disparities in leadership roles are unlikely explained by differences in publications. While gender disparities in medicine have improved, substantial disparities in leadership persist.

Are online surgical discussion boards a safe and useful venue for surgeons to ask for advice? A review of the International Hernia Collaboration Facebook Group.

BACKGROUND: Social media is a growing medium for disseminating information among surgeons. The International Hernia Collaboration Facebook Group (IHC) is a widely utilized social media platform to share ideas and advice on managing patients with hernia-related diseases. Our objective was to assess the safety and utility of advice provided. METHODS: Overall, 60 consecutive de-identified clinical threads were extracted from the IHC in reverse chronological order. A group of three hernia specialists evaluated all threads for unsafe posts, unhelpful comments, and if an established evidence-based management strategy was provided. Positive and negative controls for safe and unsafe answers were included in seven threads and reviewers were blinded to their presence. Reviewers were free to access all online and professional resources (except the IHC). RESULTS: There were 598 unique responses (median 10, 1-26 responses per thread) to the 60 clinical threads/scenarios. The review team correctly identified all seven positive and negative controls. Most responses were safe (96.6%) but some were unhelpful (28.4%). For sixteen threads, the reviewers believed there was an established evidence-based answer; however, only six were provided. In addition, 14 responses were considered unsafe, but only four were corrected. CONCLUSIONS: The vast majority of responses were considered helpful; however, evidence-based management is typically not provided and unsafe recommendations often go uncontested. While the IHC allows wide dissemination of hernia-related surgical advice/discussions, surgeons should be cautious when using the IHC for clinical advice. Mechanisms to provide evidence-based management strategies and to identify unsafe advice are needed to improve quality within online forums and to prevent patient harm.