Disparities Among Leading Publishers of Arthroplasty Research

Diversity of Backgrounds and Academic Accomplishments for Presidents Elected to Hip and Knee Arthroplasty Societies in the United States

BACKGROUND

Academic accomplishments and demographics for presidents of hip and knee arthroplasty societies are poorly understood. This study compares the characteristics of presidents nominated to serve the Hip Society, Knee Society, and American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons.

METHODS

This was a cross-sectional study of arthroplasty presidents in the United States (1990 to 2022). Curriculum vitae and academic websites were analyzed for demographic, training, bibliometric, and National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding data. Comparisons were made between organizations and time periods (1990 to 2005 versus 2006 to 2022).

RESULTS

There were 97 appointments of 78 unique arthroplasty presidents (80%). Most presidents were male (99%) and Caucasian (95%). There was 1 woman (1%) and 5 non-Caucasian presidents (2% Asian, 3% Hispanic). There were no differences in demographics between the 3 arthroplasty organizations and the 2 time periods (P > .05). Presidents were appointed at 55 ± 10 years old, which was on average 24 years after completion of residency training. Most presidents had arthroplasty fellowship training (68%), and the most common were the Hospital for Special Surgery (21%) and Massachusetts General Hospital (8%). The median h-index was 53 resulting from 191 peer-reviewed publications, which was similar between the 3 organizations (P > .05). There were 2 presidents who had NIH funding (2%), and there were no differences in NIH funding between the 3 organizations (P > .05).

CONCLUSIONS

Arthroplasty society presidents have diverse training pedigrees, high levels of scholarly output, and similar demographics. There may be future opportunities to promote diversity and inclusion among the highest levels of leadership in total joint arthroplasty.

Recognizing the Sex Disparity in Surgeons Performing Total Knee Arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

There is an unambiguous sex disparity in the field of orthopaedic surgery, with women making up only 7.4% of practicing orthopaedic surgeons in 2022. This study seeks to evaluate the sex distribution among orthopaedic surgeons engaged in primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) between 2013 and 2020, as well as the procedural volume attributed to each provider.

METHODS

We retrospectively queried the Medicare dataset to quantify all physicians reporting orthopaedic surgery as their specialty and performing primary TKA from 2013 to 2020. Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System codes for primary TKA procedures were used to extract associated utilization and billing provider information. Trend analyses were performed with 2-sided correlated Mann-Kendall tests to evaluate trends in the number of surgeons by sex and the women-to-men surgeon ratio.

RESULTS

During the study period, 6,198 to 7,189 surgeons billed for primary TKA. Of this number, an average of 2% were women. The mean number of procedures billed for by men was 39.02/y (standard deviation: 34.54), and by women was 28.76/y (standard deviation: 20.62) (P < .001). There was no significant trend in the number of men or women surgeons who billed for primary TKA during the study period. Trend analysis of the women-to-men ratio demonstrated an increasing trend of statistical significance (P = .0187).

CONCLUSIONS

There was a significant upward trend in the women-to-men ratio of surgeons who billed for primary TKA. However, there remains a colossal gender gap, as women only made up 2.4% of surgeons who billed for the procedure. The current study raises awareness of the notable discrepancy in the average number of TKAs performed by women as compared to men. The orthopaedic community should aim to determine ways to increase the number of women arthroplasty surgeons along with the opportunities that women have to perform TKAs.

Gender Trends in Authorship in 6 Major Orthopaedic Journals

BACKGROUND

Historically, orthopaedic surgery has had low female representation, with <6% of practicing surgeons identifying as female. Although prior literature has illustrated gender disparities in first and last authorship as well as changes in gender representation over time, less attention has been paid to middle authorship. We hypothesized that trends in female authorship would reflect increasing female participation in orthopaedic surgery and orthopaedic subspecialties coinciding with an overall increase in female authorship.

METHODS

Bibliometric information from articles published between 2011 and 2021 in 6 orthopaedic journals was extracted with use of the Web of Science. Collected data included author order, author names, affiliation, and corresponding author address. A gender was assigned with the use of Genderize.io, which is validated software, on the basis of author first name. Statistical analysis was performed with use of an analysis of variance for each journal, and linear regression was performed to determine trends, controlling for year.

RESULTS

Among all included orthopaedic journals, female middle authorship increased by 5 percentage points, female first authorship increased by 4 percentage points, and female last authorship increased by 1 percentage point. Over the study period, the highest rate of female middle authorship (28%) was seen in the Journal of Pediatric Orthopaedics, whereas the lowest rate (16%) was seen in The Journal of Arthroplasty . We found that the 5 highest-producing female last authors were, on average, cited significantly less per publication than their male counterparts in all but 2 journals.

CONCLUSIONS

Gender gaps exist within orthopaedic surgery as well as within its body of literature. Although this study highlights areas of growth, it also promotes further inquiry into research productivity and the availability of opportunity within orthopaedic surgery as a whole. The increase in female middle authorship overall and in each journal demonstrates momentum for future growth for women in the field of orthopaedic surgery.

Using a Modern Linked Research Database to Examine Gender Disparities in Orthopaedic Grant Funding from 2010 to 2022

BACKGROUND

Gender disparities in research grant funding persist in many disciplines. With use of the Dimensions database, we sought to examine the extent of gender disparities in U.S. orthopaedic grant funding from 2010 onward. Our aim was to provide insights into the extent of gender disparities in the field of orthopaedic research and to highlight the potential need for future action to address these disparities.

METHODS

Using orthopaedic-related search terms, we queried all U.S. grants awarded for orthopaedic research from 2010 to 2022. A total of 22,326 results were then manually screened to exclude those without a direct focus on orthopaedic research. The amounts received per principal investigator were reported in U.S. dollars and adjusted for inflation. Author gender was predicted with use of the Genderize.io algorithm application programming interface. The iCite Relative Citation Ratio (RCR) was utilized to assess the impact of the publications linked to each grant.

RESULTS

A total of 1,723 grants were included. Men principal investigators received significantly higher median funding per grant in 2011, 2012, and 2013; however, this trend reversed with women receiving nonsignificantly higher funding in 2015, 2017, 2018, 2021, and 2022. In 2020, women received significantly higher median funding per grant than men ($166,234 versus $121,384; p = 0.04). Throughout the 13-year period, men principal investigators accounted for approximately 71% of grants, with a very weak increasing trend in the percent of grants attributed to women (R 2 = 0.16; p < 0.001). Grants with men principal investigators resulted in more publications than those with women principal investigators (mean publications, 11.1 versus 6.6; p = 0.001). Publications resulting from grants awarded to men had a significantly higher mean RCR than those resulting from grants awarded to women (2.42 versus 2.09; p = 0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

There was no significant difference in the median amounts of funding per grant awarded to men and to women in 7 of the past 8 years, despite significantly greater funding per grant having been awarded to men from 2011 to 2013. Men principal investigators accounted for the majority of grants received during the study period, although this proportion was lower than the proportion of men among orthopaedic surgeons in 2022. This study could inform initiatives aimed at promoting equity in grant funding for orthopaedic research.

Women Are Underrepresented Among Principal Investigators of Hip and Knee Arthroplasty Clinical Trials in the United States

BACKGROUND

Leadership of clinical trials confers national recognition and promotes academic advancement. We hypothesized that women would be underrepresented among principal investigators (PIs) of hip and knee arthroplasty clinical trials in the United States.

METHODS

A query of hip and knee arthroplasty clinical trials from 2015 to 2021 was performed on ClinicalTrials.gov. Clinical trials were included if they involved a U.S.-based orthopaedic-surgeon PI. We analyzed the sex representation of arthroplasty PIs among junior-level (assistant professor) and senior-level (associate or full professor) faculty. Participation-to-prevalence ratios (PPRs) were calculated by comparing the sex representation among arthroplasty PIs with that among academic arthroplasty faculty at institutions conducting hip and knee arthroplasty clinical trials. A PPR of <0.8 indicated underrepresentation and a PPR of >1.2 indicated overrepresentation.

RESULTS

A total of 157 clinical trials involving 192 arthroplasty PIs were included. Of these PIs, only 2 (1.0%) were women. PIs were mostly funded by academic institutions (66%) and industry (33%). U.S. federal sources funded a minority (1%) of PIs. Of the 243 male arthroplasty faculty who were eligible, 190 men (78.2%) served as PIs. In contrast, of the 17 female arthroplasty faculty who were eligible, only 2 women (11.8%) served as PIs (p < 0.001). Across the entire cohort of arthroplasty PIs, women were underrepresented (PPR = 0.16), whereas men were equitably represented (PPR = 1.06). Women were underrepresented at the assistant professor (PPR = 0.0), associate professor (PPR = 0.52), and full professor (PPR = 0.58) levels.

CONCLUSIONS

Women were underrepresented among PIs of hip and knee arthroplasty clinical trials, which may lead to disparities in academic promotion and advancement. More research is needed to understand the potential barriers to female leadership of clinical trials. Greater awareness and engagement are needed to create sex equity in clinical trial leadership for hip and knee arthroplasty research.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

The underrepresentation of women among arthroplasty PIs may lead to fewer options in surgical providers for patients and may limit access to musculoskeletal care for certain patient populations. A diverse arthroplasty workforce can promote attention to issues that disproportionately affect historically underrepresented and vulnerable patient populations.

Gender Disparities Among Editorial Boards of International Urology Journals

BACKGROUND

Gender composition among surgical academic leadership, including academic medical journals, disproportionately favors men and may inadvertently introduce a bias. An understanding of the factors associated with gender representation among urologic journals may aid in prioritizing an equitable balance.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate female representation on editorial boards of pre-eminent international urologic journals.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

The names and position descriptions of urologic journal leadership appointees were collected in October 2021. Gender was assessed using gender-api.com or through personal title, as available. Journal characteristics were summarized using SCImago, a bibliometric indicator database extracted from Scopus journal data.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

A multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to describe associations between SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) quartile and geographic region with female gender representation. Quartile 1 (Q1) was considered the top quartile and Q4 the bottom quartile concordant with journal impact factor.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

A total of 105 urology-focused journals were identified with 5989 total editorial board members, including 877 (14.6%) female, 5112 (85.4%) male, and two nonbinary persons. Female representation differed significantly by journal leadership position, SJR quartile, and geographic region. On the multivariate analysis of overall female representation, Q1 journals had higher odds of female representation than Q2 and Q3 journals, and had no significant difference from Q4 journals. Additionally, compared with Western Europe, North American journals had 78% higher odds while Asiatic journals had 50% lower odds of female representation. This study is limited by the inability to account for outside factors that lead to invitation or acceptance of journal leadership positions.

CONCLUSIONS

Contemporary female leadership at urology journals is about six times less common than male leadership across all journals, although trends in their proportion were noted when assessed by journal quartile and region. Addressing this gender imbalance represents an important step toward achieving gender equity in the field of urology.

PATIENT SUMMARY

In this study, we looked at the gender balance of academic journal leaders who serve as gatekeepers for sharing urologic research with the public. We found that the most prestigious journals and those in western countries tended to have the highest female representation. We hope that these findings help the academic community recognize and improve gender representation.

Academic Influence as Reflected by h Index Is Not Associated With Total Industry Payments but Rather With National Institutes of Health Funding Among Academic Orthopaedic Sports Medicine Surgeons

PURPOSE

(1) To compare the total number and dollar amount of industry funding and National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding to academic orthopaedic sports medicine surgeons and (2) to examine the impact of academic influence on industry funding and NIH funding to academic orthopaedic sports medicine surgeons.

METHODS

Academic orthopaedic sports medicine surgeons were identified using faculty web pages. Academic influence was approximated by a physician's Hirsch index (h index) and number of publications and obtained from the Scopus database. Total industry payments were acquired through the Open Payments Database, and NIH funding was determined from the NIH website. Statistical analysis was performed using Mann-Whitney U test and Spearman correlations with significance set at P < .05.

RESULTS

Physicians who received industry research payments and NIH funding had a significantly higher mean h index and more mean total publications than physicians who did not receive industry research payments and NIH funding. There were no significant differences in h index (P = .374) or number of publications (P = .126) between surgeons receiving industry nonresearch funding and those who did not. h Index and number of publications were both weakly correlated with the amount of industry research and nonresearch funding.

CONCLUSION

Although academic influence is associated with industry research funding and NIH funding, there is no association between measures of academic influence and total industry and industry nonresearch payments. Combined with the weak associations between academic influence and the amount of industry payments, academic influence does not appear to be a major determinant of industry funding to academic orthopaedic sports medicine surgeons.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Surgeons should be cognizant of potential conflicts with industry, but the relationship between academic sports medicine surgeons and industry may be less subject to bias than previously believed.

The role of gender in academic productivity, impact, and leadership among academic spine surgeons

BACKGROUND/CONTEXT

Women represent a small minority of practicing orthopedic surgeons and neurosurgeons, with spine surgery having a disproportionately low representation relative to other subspecialties. Previous efforts have attempted to characterize gender patterns in authorship amongst select spine journals. However, no study to our knowledge has done a comprehensive assessment of the influence of gender on academic productivity, impact, and leadership amongst academic spine faculty.

PURPOSE

To evaluate the impact of gender on academic productivity, promotion to leadership positions, and career advancement among academic spine faculty in the United States.

STUDY DESIGN

Cross-sectional study.

PATIENT SAMPLE

Academic spine faculty associated with orthopedic residency, North American Spine Society spine fellowship programs, and American Association of Neurological Surgeons spine fellowship programs.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Academic productivity as measured by publications counts, h-index, authorship ranking as well as academic rank and leadership roles METHODS: We identified all spine faculty across orthopedic residency, orthopedic spine fellowship, and neurosurgical spine fellowship programs in the United States, and abstracted academic performance characteristics, cumulative h-index, and complete publication records for each individual faculty member. Proportions of men and women by specialty, academic rank, and leadership were compared with Fisher's exact testing, and comparison of mean h-index and publication counts compared with Wilcoxon rank-sum testing. Adjusted analyses on publication count and h-index were achieved with poisson regression analysis with gender as the primary predictor adjusting for specialty, degrees, academic rank, and seniority based on time since fellowship completion.

RESULTS

The representation of women among spine faculty associated with orthopedic residency and North American Spine Society spine fellowship programs was 5.6%. On average, women had 40% fewer total publications (p=.025), h-indices approximately 5 units lower than men (p=.006), 40% fewer total high-impact publications (p=.030), half the senior author publications (p=.005), and half the high-impact senior author publications (p=.007) compared to men. After adjusting for seniority and academic rank, the number of publications in high impact journals no longer differed between men and women, although differences persisted for total publication count and the h-index. Men were significantly more likely to occupy higher academic ranks, with 25.6% of men and 9.5% of women holding the rank of full professor (p=.031), although there was no significant difference in the rate of appointment to leadership positions. Similar findings were encountered among American Association of Neurological Surgeons spine fellowship faculty.

CONCLUSIONS

The present study details the low rate of women in academic spine surgery. Furthermore, gender disparities exist in publication volume, impact, and h-indices. A much lower proportion of women hold higher-ranking academic positions compared to men, though appointment to leadership positions was similar between genders. Differences in seniority and publication metrics may in part be due to the relatively younger cohort of women faculty. These findings underscore the need for active investment in diversity and pipeline efforts that facilitate recruitment and support academic productivity of women in spine surgery.

Middle East Authors' Contribution to the Journal of Arthroplasty’s Publications in the Past 20 years (2000–2020)

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion