在高影响的重症监护随机对照试验中,女性作者超过25年的相关因素:管道仍在泄漏

IF 9.3 1区 医学 Q1 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE
Joris Pensier, Clémence De Caumia-Baillenx, Antoine De Caumia-Baillenx, Inès Lakbar, Julie Carr, Karolina Griffiths, David Costa, Mathieu Capdevila, Samir Jaber, Audrey De Jong
{"title":"在高影响的重症监护随机对照试验中,女性作者超过25年的相关因素:管道仍在泄漏","authors":"Joris Pensier, Clémence De Caumia-Baillenx, Antoine De Caumia-Baillenx, Inès Lakbar, Julie Carr, Karolina Griffiths, David Costa, Mathieu Capdevila, Samir Jaber, Audrey De Jong","doi":"10.1186/s13054-025-05627-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Studies have shown an underrepresentation of women in clinical research, but little is known about trends over time and factors associated with this underrepresentation. This study aimed to investigate the evolution and the independent factors associated with the proportion of women in the authorship of high-impact critical care randomized controlled trials (RCTs) over 25 years. This meta-epidemiological study screened adult critical care RCTs published between 1999 and 2023 in the six highest-impact general and critical care journals. Sex was assessed using a combination of authors’ biographies, available photographs, the gender R package, and a native Chinese speaker’s assistance to ensure cultural accuracy. The primary outcome was the proportion of women among the authors. Unadjusted and adjusted generalized linear mixed models were performed. Of 1,203 RCTs, the sex of all authors was determined in 1,199 (99.7%). Overall, 4,335 out of 16,057 authors (27%) were women. Women were less frequently first (247/1,199 [21%], p < 0.001) or senior authors (174/1,199 [15%], p < 0.001) compared to other positions. The proportion of women among authors increased by a change rate of 0.7% per year ([0.5%—0.9%]) from 18% in 1999 to 32% in 2023. In multivariable analysis, the proportion of women increased significantly per year of publication (odds ratio [OR] = 1.05, 95% confidence interval [1.02–1.09], p < 0.01) and sample size (OR = 1.007 [1.003–1.012] per 100 patients increase, p = 0.01), and decreased significantly in European RCTs (OR = 0.53 [0.33–0.85], p < 0.01), RCTs on ventilation (OR = 0.50 [0.25–0.97], p = 0.04) but not sepsis (OR = 0.74 [0.37–1.46], p = 0.39), mortality as primary outcome (OR = 0.36 [0.14–0.92], p = 0.03), and with endorsement by a study group (OR = 0.36 [0.18–0.69], p < 0.01). Although the proportion of women in authorship has risen over 25 years, women are still widely underrepresented in the authors of high-impact RCTs, especially as first and senior authors. This underrepresentation is exacerbated in Europe, in trials with mortality as primary outcome, on ventilation, or endorsed by a study group. This illustrates the “leaky pipeline” framework: women are still excluded from the highest-level of critical care research.","PeriodicalId":10811,"journal":{"name":"Critical Care","volume":"27 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Factors associated with women authorship over 25 years in high-impact critical care randomized controlled trials: the pipeline is still leaking\",\"authors\":\"Joris Pensier, Clémence De Caumia-Baillenx, Antoine De Caumia-Baillenx, Inès Lakbar, Julie Carr, Karolina Griffiths, David Costa, Mathieu Capdevila, Samir Jaber, Audrey De Jong\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s13054-025-05627-w\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Studies have shown an underrepresentation of women in clinical research, but little is known about trends over time and factors associated with this underrepresentation. This study aimed to investigate the evolution and the independent factors associated with the proportion of women in the authorship of high-impact critical care randomized controlled trials (RCTs) over 25 years. This meta-epidemiological study screened adult critical care RCTs published between 1999 and 2023 in the six highest-impact general and critical care journals. Sex was assessed using a combination of authors’ biographies, available photographs, the gender R package, and a native Chinese speaker’s assistance to ensure cultural accuracy. The primary outcome was the proportion of women among the authors. Unadjusted and adjusted generalized linear mixed models were performed. Of 1,203 RCTs, the sex of all authors was determined in 1,199 (99.7%). Overall, 4,335 out of 16,057 authors (27%) were women. Women were less frequently first (247/1,199 [21%], p < 0.001) or senior authors (174/1,199 [15%], p < 0.001) compared to other positions. The proportion of women among authors increased by a change rate of 0.7% per year ([0.5%—0.9%]) from 18% in 1999 to 32% in 2023. In multivariable analysis, the proportion of women increased significantly per year of publication (odds ratio [OR] = 1.05, 95% confidence interval [1.02–1.09], p < 0.01) and sample size (OR = 1.007 [1.003–1.012] per 100 patients increase, p = 0.01), and decreased significantly in European RCTs (OR = 0.53 [0.33–0.85], p < 0.01), RCTs on ventilation (OR = 0.50 [0.25–0.97], p = 0.04) but not sepsis (OR = 0.74 [0.37–1.46], p = 0.39), mortality as primary outcome (OR = 0.36 [0.14–0.92], p = 0.03), and with endorsement by a study group (OR = 0.36 [0.18–0.69], p < 0.01). Although the proportion of women in authorship has risen over 25 years, women are still widely underrepresented in the authors of high-impact RCTs, especially as first and senior authors. This underrepresentation is exacerbated in Europe, in trials with mortality as primary outcome, on ventilation, or endorsed by a study group. This illustrates the “leaky pipeline” framework: women are still excluded from the highest-level of critical care research.\",\"PeriodicalId\":10811,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Critical Care\",\"volume\":\"27 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":9.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Critical Care\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-025-05627-w\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Critical Care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-025-05627-w","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

研究表明,女性在临床研究中的代表性不足,但随着时间的推移,人们对这种代表性不足的趋势和相关因素知之甚少。本研究旨在探讨25年来高影响重症随机对照试验(RCTs)中女性作者比例的演变及其相关的独立因素。这项荟萃流行病学研究筛选了1999年至2023年间发表在六个最具影响力的普通和重症监护期刊上的成人重症监护随机对照试验。性别的评估结合了作者的传记、可用的照片、性别R包和母语为汉语的人的帮助,以确保文化的准确性。主要结果是作者中女性的比例。进行了未调整和调整后的广义线性混合模型。在1203项随机对照试验中,1199项(99.7%)确定了所有作者的性别。总体而言,16,057位作者中有4,335位(27%)是女性。与其他职位相比,女性较少担任第一职位(247/ 1199 [21%],p < 0.001)或资深作者(174/ 1199 [15%],p < 0.001)。女性作者的比例以每年0.7%([0.5%-0.9%])的速度增长,从1999年的18%增长到2023年的32%。在多变量分析中,女性的比例显著增加每年出版(比值比(或)= 1.05,95%置信区间(1.02 - -1.09),p < 0.01)和样本容量(或= 1.007(1.003 - -1.012)每100例增加,p = 0.01),并显著降低在欧洲相关(或= 0.53 (0.33 - -0.85),p < 0.01),相关的通风(或= 0.50 (0.25 - -0.97),p = 0.04)但不是脓毒症(或= 0.74 (0.37 - -1.46),p = 0.39),死亡率作为主要结果(或= 0.36 (0.14 - -0.92),p = 0.03),研究组认可(OR = 0.36 [0.18-0.69], p < 0.01)。尽管女性作者的比例在过去25年中有所上升,但在高影响力随机对照试验的作者中,女性的代表性仍然普遍不足,尤其是作为第一作者和高级作者。在欧洲以死亡率为主要结局的试验中,在通气试验中,或在研究组认可的试验中,这种代表性不足加剧了。这说明了“管道泄漏”的框架:妇女仍然被排除在最高级别的重症护理研究之外。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Factors associated with women authorship over 25 years in high-impact critical care randomized controlled trials: the pipeline is still leaking
Studies have shown an underrepresentation of women in clinical research, but little is known about trends over time and factors associated with this underrepresentation. This study aimed to investigate the evolution and the independent factors associated with the proportion of women in the authorship of high-impact critical care randomized controlled trials (RCTs) over 25 years. This meta-epidemiological study screened adult critical care RCTs published between 1999 and 2023 in the six highest-impact general and critical care journals. Sex was assessed using a combination of authors’ biographies, available photographs, the gender R package, and a native Chinese speaker’s assistance to ensure cultural accuracy. The primary outcome was the proportion of women among the authors. Unadjusted and adjusted generalized linear mixed models were performed. Of 1,203 RCTs, the sex of all authors was determined in 1,199 (99.7%). Overall, 4,335 out of 16,057 authors (27%) were women. Women were less frequently first (247/1,199 [21%], p < 0.001) or senior authors (174/1,199 [15%], p < 0.001) compared to other positions. The proportion of women among authors increased by a change rate of 0.7% per year ([0.5%—0.9%]) from 18% in 1999 to 32% in 2023. In multivariable analysis, the proportion of women increased significantly per year of publication (odds ratio [OR] = 1.05, 95% confidence interval [1.02–1.09], p < 0.01) and sample size (OR = 1.007 [1.003–1.012] per 100 patients increase, p = 0.01), and decreased significantly in European RCTs (OR = 0.53 [0.33–0.85], p < 0.01), RCTs on ventilation (OR = 0.50 [0.25–0.97], p = 0.04) but not sepsis (OR = 0.74 [0.37–1.46], p = 0.39), mortality as primary outcome (OR = 0.36 [0.14–0.92], p = 0.03), and with endorsement by a study group (OR = 0.36 [0.18–0.69], p < 0.01). Although the proportion of women in authorship has risen over 25 years, women are still widely underrepresented in the authors of high-impact RCTs, especially as first and senior authors. This underrepresentation is exacerbated in Europe, in trials with mortality as primary outcome, on ventilation, or endorsed by a study group. This illustrates the “leaky pipeline” framework: women are still excluded from the highest-level of critical care research.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Critical Care
Critical Care 医学-危重病医学
CiteScore
20.60
自引率
3.30%
发文量
348
审稿时长
1.5 months
期刊介绍: Critical Care is an esteemed international medical journal that undergoes a rigorous peer-review process to maintain its high quality standards. Its primary objective is to enhance the healthcare services offered to critically ill patients. To achieve this, the journal focuses on gathering, exchanging, disseminating, and endorsing evidence-based information that is highly relevant to intensivists. By doing so, Critical Care seeks to provide a thorough and inclusive examination of the intensive care field.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信