Gender-gap in randomized clinical trials reporting mortality in the perioperative setting and critical care: 20 years behind the scenes.

Background: Women researchers might experience obstacles in academic environments and might be underrepresented in the authorship of articles published in peer-reviewed journals.
Material and Methods: This is a cross-sectional analysis of female-led RCTs describing all interventions reducing mortality in critically ill and perioperative patients from 1981 to December 31, 2020. We searched PubMed/MEDLINE and EMBASE with the keywords RCTs and mortality. The gender of the first author was extracted and descriptive analysis was performed including the year of publication, impact factor, country of the first author, and methodological aspects.
Results: We analyzed 340 RCTs, of which 42 (12%) were led by female researchers. The presence of women increased from 8% (14/172) until 2010 up to 17% (28/168) in 2010 and beyond. The United States, the United Kingdom, and Brazil were the main countries of origin of female researchers. Women authors conducted mainly single-center and single-nation studies as compared to male authors. The median impact factor of the target journal was 6 (3-27) in women vs. 7 (3-28) in men, with a p-value of 0.67; Critical Care Medicine , JAMA , and The New England Journal of Medicine were the most frequent target journals for both women and men.
Conclusion: In the last 40 years, only one out of eight RCTs had a woman as the first author but the presence of women increased up to 17% by 2010 and beyond. The impact factor of publication target journals was high and not different between genders.
Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
(©2023PublishedbyElsevierInc.)