Does reported funding differ by gender in the surgical literature?

Area of Science:

• Medical research
• Surgical literature analysis
• Academic publishing

Background:

• Women comprise 13.5% of board-certified surgeons.
• Common perception suggests women surgeons face disparities in funding and publication.
• This study addresses these perceptions within the surgical field.

Purpose of the Study:

• To compare first authorship and reported funding of original articles in major surgical journals by gender.
• To investigate potential gender-based differences in academic publishing and research funding in surgery.

Main Methods:

• A structured review of original articles published in 2006 from four leading surgical journals.
• Data collected included first author's gender and degree, study design, institution type, and funding source.
• Statistical analyses included chi-tests and multivariate logistic regression to assess gender-based funding disparities.

Main Results:

• Women first-authored 17.8% of evaluated articles, a higher proportion than their representation in surgery.
• Reported funding rates were similar between male (37.0%) and female (45.8%) first authors (P=0.08).
• Female first authors were less likely to hold medical degrees (78.8% vs. 93.6%, P<0.0010).

Conclusions:

• The proportion of original surgical articles authored by women exceeds their percentage in the surgical workforce.
• Funding rates for original research articles did not significantly differ by gender.
• Study design, specifically randomized clinical trials, was a significant factor associated with funding.