medical writing

医学写作
  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    精通医学写作对于传播医学研究报告至关重要。讲习班在这方面对参与者信心的影响是一个辩论的主题。我们评估了实践研讨会对参与者对医学写作信心的影响。在麦克马斯特大学举行的为期两天的“边做边学”研讨会的参与者参加了这项前后研究。我们用了一个独特的,可靠,和有效的工具,包括在接受教育干预之前和之后对医学写作和使用英语的两个领域。在25名参与者中,21完成仪器前后的车间。典型的参与者是女性,和30多岁的学生,以前没有参加过研讨会。参与者对域1的信心的平均(95%CI)增加为15.3(10.5,20.1),域2为16.8(9.8,23.8),总分为32.1(20.9,43.2)(均P<0.001)。亚组间分析显示,在医学研究经验少于5年的参与者中,得分增加明显更高。研讨会对提高参与者对写作技巧的信心产生了积极影响,包括使用主动动词,制作简短的句子,总结主要发现,并遵守清单,如CONSORT。动手医学写作研讨会可以提高参与者撰写医学文章和使用最佳英语的信心。针对初级研究人员和研究生可能会带来更好的结果。强调参与者获得较高分数变化的写作领域可能会给此类研讨会带来更好的结果。
    Proficiency in medical writing is crucial for disseminating reports of medical studies. The impact of workshops in this regard on participants\' confidence is a subject of debate. We assessed the impact of a hands-on workshop on participants\' confidence in medical writing. Participants of a 2-day \"learning-by-doing\" workshop held at McMaster University participated in this before-after study. We used a unique, reliable, and valid tool comprising two domains of confidence in medical writing and using English language before and after receiving the educational intervention. Of 25 participants, 21 completed the instrument before and after the workshop. Typical participants were female, and students in their 30s, who had not attended a prior workshop. The mean (95% CI) increase in the participants\' confidence for domain 1 was 15.3 (10.5, 20.1), for domain 2 was 16.8 (9.8, 23.8), and for the total score was 32.1 (20.9, 43.2) (all P<0.001). Between-subgroup analyses showed the score increase was significantly higher in participants with less than 5 years of experience in medical research. The workshop had a positive impact on enhancing participants\' confidence in writing skills, including using active verbs, crafting short sentences, summarizing main findings, and adhering to checklists like CONSORT. Hands-on medical writing workshops can boost participants\' confidence in writing medical articles and using optimal English language. Targeting junior researchers and graduate students could result in a better outcome. Emphasizing the writing areas where participants achieved higher score changes might yield better outcomes for such workshops.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Pubmed)

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    人工智能(AI)语言模型在访问和能力方面都在不断扩展。随着这些模型的发展,探索有关AI生成文本的政策的医学和医疗保健领域的学术期刊数量有所增加。此类政策的实施需要准确的AI检测工具。不准确的检测器可能会对人类作者造成不必要的惩罚,并且/或者可能会损害针对AI生成内容的指南的有效执行。然而,在已发表的研究中,发现AI文本检测工具在识别人类书写内容与AI生成内容方面的准确性有所不同。这项实验研究使用了行为健康出版物的样本,并从免费和付费的AI检测工具中发现了有问题的假阳性和假阴性率。该研究评估了2016年至2018年行为健康和精神病学期刊上的100篇研究文章以及AI聊天机器人制作的200篇文本(“ChatGPT”100篇和“克劳德”100篇)。免费的AI检测器显示,被识别为AI生成的学术文本比例的中位数为27.2%,而商业软件独创性。人工智能表现出更好的性能,但仍然有局限性,特别是在检测克劳德生成的文本时。这些错误率引发了人们对依赖AI检测器在行为健康出版物中执行有关AI文本生成的严格政策的怀疑。
    Artificial Intelligence (AI) language models continue to expand in both access and capability. As these models have evolved, the number of academic journals in medicine and healthcare which have explored policies regarding AI-generated text has increased. The implementation of such policies requires accurate AI detection tools. Inaccurate detectors risk unnecessary penalties for human authors and/or may compromise the effective enforcement of guidelines against AI-generated content. Yet, the accuracy of AI text detection tools in identifying human-written versus AI-generated content has been found to vary across published studies. This experimental study used a sample of behavioral health publications and found problematic false positive and false negative rates from both free and paid AI detection tools. The study assessed 100 research articles from 2016-2018 in behavioral health and psychiatry journals and 200 texts produced by AI chatbots (100 by \"ChatGPT\" and 100 by \"Claude\"). The free AI detector showed a median of 27.2% for the proportion of academic text identified as AI-generated, while commercial software Originality.AI demonstrated better performance but still had limitations, especially in detecting texts generated by Claude. These error rates raise doubts about relying on AI detectors to enforce strict policies around AI text generation in behavioral health publications.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

    求助全文

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    目的:调查护士使用转诊信和出院总结的方式,以及他们认为这些文件的质量对安全有效的实践很有价值。
    方法:本研究包括定性,使用方便抽样在建构主义范式中进行案例研究设计。
    方法:对护士进行了访谈,以调查他们与转诊信和出院总结有关的做法。数据收集还涉及护士的检查和评估,包括通过焦点小组会议从两家澳大利亚医院的病历中获得的10封转诊信和出院摘要。对数据进行转录和感应分析。
    结果:总而言之,67名护士参加了访谈或焦点小组。护士表示,他们在住院期间的不同时间照顾患者时,会使用转诊信和出院摘要来告知他们的工作。这些文件协助他们进行口头交接,使他们能够教育病人他们的病情和治疗,并提供高标准的护理。他们最重视的推荐信和出院摘要的质量是语言和交流,对受众和临床知识的认识,以及平衡信息的简洁性和全面性。
    结论:护士依靠转诊信和出院总结来确保安全和有效的患者护理。他们用这些文件来加强他们的口头交接,有助于患者护理,并教育患者关于他们的病情和治疗。他们确定了这些文件的几种质量,以帮助他们维护患者安全,包括信息的清晰度和简洁性。
    重要的是要写清楚推荐信和出院摘要,简洁而全面,因为护士将其用作计划和提供护理的关键证据来源,并与其他卫生专业人员沟通,传达护理目标和实施治疗计划。
    结论:护士报告说,他们定期使用转诊信和出院总结作为患者住院期间的宝贵证据来源。他们最重视的这些文件的质量是语言和沟通风格,受众和临床知识的意识,以及平衡信息的简洁性和全面性。这项研究在鼓励有效的转诊信和出院总结写作方面对患者体验具有重要影响。
    我们通过SRQR报告方法遵守了相关的EQUATOR准则。
    没有患者或公众捐款。
    OBJECTIVE: To investigate the ways that nurses engage with referral letters and discharge summaries, and the qualities of these documents they find valuable for safe and effective practice.
    METHODS: This study comprised a qualitative, case-study design within a constructivist paradigm using convenience sampling.
    METHODS: Interviews were conducted with nurses to investigate their practices relating to referral letters and discharge summaries. Data collection also involved nurses\' examination and evaluation of a diverse range of 10 referral letters and discharge summaries from medical records at two Australian hospitals through focus-group sessions. The data were transcribed and analysed inductively.
    RESULTS: In all, 67 nurses participated in interviews or focus groups. Nurses indicated they used referral letters and discharge summaries to inform their work when caring for patients at different times throughout their hospitalisation. These documents assisted them with verbal handovers, to enable them to educate patients about their condition and treatment and to provide a high standard of care. The qualities of referral letters and discharge summaries that they most valued were language and communication, an awareness of audience and clinical knowledge, as well as balancing conciseness with comprehensiveness of information.
    CONCLUSIONS: Nurses relied on referral letters and discharge summaries to ensure safe and effective patient care. They used these documents to enhance their verbal handovers, contribute to patient care and to educate the patient about their condition and treatment. They identified several qualities of these documents that assisted them in maintaining patient safety including clarity and conciseness of information.
    UNASSIGNED: It is important that referral letters and discharge summaries are written clearly, concisely and comprehensively because nurses use them as key sources of evidence in planning and delivering care, and in communicating with other health professionals in relaying goals of care and implementing treatment plans.
    CONCLUSIONS: Nurses reported that they regularly used referral letters and discharge summaries as valuable sources of evidence throughout their patients\' hospitalisation. The qualities of these documents which they most valued were language and communication styles, awareness of audience and clinical knowledge, as well as balancing conciseness with comprehensiveness of information. This research has important impact on the patient experience in relation to encouraging effective referral letter and discharge summary writing.
    UNASSIGNED: We have adhered to the relevant EQUATOR guidelines through the SRQR reporting method.
    UNASSIGNED: No patient or public contribution.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

    求助全文

  • DOI:
    文章类型: Journal Article
    UNASSIGNED: The purpose of this study was to determine the practicality of using a teleconferencing platform to assess the effect of hype on clinicians\' evaluations of reports of clinical trials in spinal care.
    UNASSIGNED: Twelve chiropractic clinicians were interviewed via a videoconferencing application. Interviews were recorded and timed. Participant behaviour was monitored for compliance with the protocol. Differences between participants numerical ratings of hyped and non-hyped abstracts based on four measures of quality were analysed using pairwise comparisons (Wilcoxon signed rank test for independent samples). In addition, a linear mixed effects model was fitted with condition (i.e. hype vs. no hype) as a fixed effect and participant and abstract as random effects.
    UNASSIGNED: The interviews and data analysis were conducted without significant technical difficulty. Participant compliance was high, and no harms were reported. There were no statistically significant differences in the quality rankings of hyped versus non-hyped abstracts.
    UNASSIGNED: The use of a videoconferencing platform to measure the effects of hype on clinicians\' evaluations of abstracts of clinical trials is practical and an adequately powered study is justified. Lack of statistically significant results may well be due to low participant numbers.
    UNASSIGNED: L’objectif de cette étude était de déterminer s’il était possible d’utiliser une plateforme de téléconférence pour mesurer l’effet du battage médiatique sur les évaluations par les cliniciens des rapports d’essais cliniques dans le domaine des soins de la colonne vertébrale.
    UNASSIGNED: Douze chiropracticiens ont été interrogés par le biais d’une application de vidéoconférence. Les entretiens ont été enregistrés et chronométrés. Le comportement des participants a été contrôlé pour s’assurer qu’ils respectaient le protocole. Les différences entre les évaluations numériques des participants pour les résumés avec et sans publicité, basées sur quatre mesures de qualité, ont été analysées en utilisant des comparaisons par paire (test de rang signé de Wilcoxon pour les échantillons indépendants). En outre, un modèle linéaire à effets mixtes a été ajusté avec la condition (c’est-à-dire avec ou sans battage publicitaire) comme effet fixe et le participant et le résumé comme effets aléatoires.
    UNASSIGNED: Les entretiens et l’analyse des données se sont déroulés sans difficulté technique majeure. Les participants se sont montrés très coopératifs et aucun problème n’a été signalé. Il n’y a pas eu de différences statistiquement significatives dans le classement de la qualité des résumés avec ou sans battage médiatique.
    UNASSIGNED: L’utilisation d’une plate-forme de vidéoconférence pour mesurer les effets du battage médiatique sur les évaluations des résumés d’essais cliniques par les cliniciens est pratique et une étude suffisamment puissante est justifiée. L’absence de résultats statistiquement significatifs pourrait bien être due au faible nombre de participants.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Pubmed)

  • 文章类型: Randomized Controlled Trial
    暂无摘要。
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

    求助全文

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    目的:根据摘要系统评价和荟萃分析的首选报告项目(PRISMA-A)指南,评估在主要普通牙科期刊上发表的系统评价(SR)摘要的报告质量,并确定与整体报告质量相关的因素。
    方法:我们确定了发表在10种主要普通牙科期刊上的SR摘要,并评估了其报告质量。对于每个抽象,总体报告得分(ORS,范围:0-13)计算。计算风险比(RR)以比较PRISMA前(2011-2012)和PRISMA后(2017-2018)期间摘要的报告质量。进行单变量和多变量线性回归分析以确定与报告质量相关的因素。
    结果:共纳入104份合格摘要。PRISMA前和后摘要的平均ORS分别为5.59(SD=1.48)和6.97(1.74),差异有统计学意义(平均差=1.38;95%CI:0.70,2.05)。准确P值的报告(B=1.22;95%CI:0.45,1.99)是较高报告质量的重要预测因素。
    结论:PRISMA-A指南发布后,在主要的普通牙科期刊上发表的SR摘要的报告质量得到了改善,但仍然是次优的。相关利益相关者需要共同努力,以提高牙科SR摘要的报告质量。
    To assess the reporting quality of systematic review (SR) abstracts published in leading general dental journals according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses for Abstracts (PRISMA-A) guidelines, and to identify factors associated with overall reporting quality.
    We identified SR abstracts published in 10 leading general dental journals and assessed their reporting quality. For each abstract, an overall reporting score (ORS, range: 0-13) was calculated. Risk ratio (RR) was calculated to compare the reporting quality of abstracts in Pre-PRISMA (2011-2012) and Post-PRISMA (2017-2018) periods. Univariable and multivariable linear regression analyses were performed to identify factors associated with reporting quality.
    A total of 104 eligible abstracts were included. The mean ORS was 5.59 (SD = 1.48) and 6.97 (1.74) respectively in the Pre- and Post-PRISMA abstracts, with statistically significant difference (mean difference = 1.38; 95% CI: 0.70, 2.05). Reporting of the exact P-value (B = 1.22; 95% CI: 0.45, 1.99) was a significant predictor of higher reporting quality.
    The reporting quality of SR abstracts published in leading general dental journals improved after the release of PRISMA-A guidelines, but is still suboptimal. Relevant stakeholders need to work together to enhance the reporting quality of SR abstracts in dentistry.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

    求助全文

  • DOI:
    文章类型: English Abstract
    The use of different guides to report types of study in the medical field has been widely disseminated for decades, however, their adherence and use by an important part of researchers is still limited, this has negatively impacted the dissemination of new findings, which has generated criticism regarding how medical research is designed, conducted and reported. Parallel to this, there are extensions to these guidelines which are little known and used by the personnel involved in research work, they focus on more specific approaches to report different types of studies, among which are: meta-analysis, systematic reviews, clinical trials randomized, diagnostic accuracy studies, observational studies, among others; for this reason, its promotion, knowledge, and use is of vital importance. The objective of this review is to synthesize the main extensions of the guidelines used in medical research; for this purpose, its main characteristics were reviewed, as well as application scenarios according to the level of evidence; Its adequate adherence will allow health personnel involved in research work to increase the transparency and quality of their findings, contemplate potential sources of bias, as well as the development of good practices for the presentation of their results according to the type of study selected.
    El uso de diferentes guías para reportar tipos de estudio en el campo médico ha sido ampliamente difundido desde hace décadas; sin embargo, su adherencia y utilización por una parte importante de investigadores aún es limitada. Esto ha impactado de manera negativa en la difusión de nuevos hallazgos, lo cual ha generado críticas en relación a cómo se diseñan, realizan y reportan investigaciones médicas. Paralelo a ello, existen extensiones a dichas guías, las cuales son poco conocidas y utilizadas por el personal involucrado en labores de investigación, estas se enfocan en aproximaciones más específicas para reportar diferentes tipos de estudios entre los que destacan: metaanálisis, revisiones sistemáticas, ensayos clínicos aleatorizados, estudios de precisión diagnóstica, estudios observacionales, entre otros. Por tal motivo, es de vital importancia su promoción, conocimiento y utilización. El objetivo de la presente revisión es sintetizar las principales extensiones de las guías utilizadas en investigación médica. Para tal efecto se revisaron sus principales características, así como escenarios de aplicación de acuerdo con el nivel de evidencia; su adecuada adhesión permitirá al personal de salud involucrado en labores de investigación incrementar la transparencia y calidad de sus hallazgos, contemplar fuentes potenciales de sesgos, así como el desarrollo de buenas prácticas para la presentación de sus resultados de acuerdo al tipo de estudio seleccionado.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Pubmed)

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    目的:本研究的目的是评估在过去10年中发表的口腔种植口试验(SMT)的报告和方法学质量,并调查随着时间的推移是否有任何改善。
    方法:我们搜索了PubMed2011-20年期间发表的口腔种植术中的SMTs。我们使用CONSORT2010,其扩展为个人内部试验(WPT),和SMT特定的方法学检查表,以评估试验报告质量(TRQ),WPT特定报告质量(WRQ),和SMT特定的方法学质量(SMQ),分别。每个项目都有二进制分数,和TRQ总分(范围0-32),WRQ(0-15),计算每个研究的SMQ(0-3)。进行了多变量回归分析,以比较WPTCONSORT发布之前(2011-17)和之后(2018-20)发布的SMTs的质量。
    结果:纳入了79个SMT。平均TRQ,WRQ,SMQ分别为16.4、6.7和1.3。不到三分之一(n=25,31.6%)报告了使用裂口设计的理由。只有4次(5.1%)试验充分进行了样本量计算,40人(50.6%)使用了适当的统计方法,考虑了数据的依赖性和聚类。在多变量分析中,与2011-17年相比,2018-20年发表的研究报告的TRQ明显更高(p=0.044),而WRQ和SMQ没有显示出改善。
    结论:口腔种植中SMT的报告和方法学质量需要改进。需要共同努力,以改进该领域SMT的报告和方法。
    OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to assess the reporting and methodological quality of split-mouth trials (SMTs) in oral implantology published during the past 10 years, and to investigate whether there was any improvement over time.
    METHODS: We searched PubMed for SMTs in oral implantology published during 2011-20. We used CONSORT 2010, its extension for within-person trial (WPT), and an SMT-specific methodological checklist to assess trial reporting quality (TRQ), WPT-specific reporting quality (WRQ), and SMT-specific methodological quality (SMQ), respectively. Binary scores were given to each item, and total scores of TRQ (range 0-32), WRQ (0-15), and SMQ (0-3) were calculated for each study. Multivariable regression analyses were performed to compare the quality of SMTs published before (2011-17) and after (2018-20) the release of CONSORT for WPT.
    RESULTS: Seventy-nine SMTs were included. The mean TRQ, WRQ, and SMQ were 16.4, 6.7, and 1.3, respectively. Less than one-third (n = 25, 31.6%) reported the rationale for using split-mouth designs. Only 4 (5.1%) trials adequately conducted sample size calculation, and 40 (50.6%) used appropriate statistical methods that considered dependency and clustering of data. In multivariable analyses, compared with 2011-17, studies published in 2018-20 had significantly higher TRQ (p = .044), while WRQ and SMQ did not show improvement.
    CONCLUSIONS: The reporting and methodological quality of SMTs in oral implantology need to be improved. Joint efforts are needed to improve the reporting and methodology of SMTs in this field.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

    求助全文

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    对《医学教育展望》(PME)杂志进行文献计量案例研究,以深入了解该杂志的内部运作方式,并“盘点”PME今天的位置,它去过哪里,以及它可能会去哪里。
    数据,包括书目元数据,审阅者和作者详细信息,和下载,从杂志的编辑经理和WebofScience收集了提交给PME并在PME上发表的手稿。作者和审稿人的性别是使用Genderize.io进行预测的。要可视化和分析协作模式,进行了引文关系和术语共现社会网络分析(SNA)。VOSviewer用于可视化社交网络地图。
    2012-2019年收到的PME,平均而言,每年260份手稿(范围=73-402)。收到来自81个国家的作者的意见书,其中大多数在美国(US),英国,和荷兰。PME发表了518份手稿,作者来自31个国家,大多数在荷兰,US,和加拿大。PME文章下载了717,613次(平均每篇文档:1388)。总共邀请了1201位(55%的女性)独特的同行评审员,并邀请了649位(57%的女性)完成了评论;PME上发表了1227位(49%的女性)独特作者。SNA透露,PME作者相当合作,大多数与他人一起创作文章,只有少数人(n=57)作为单一作者。
    本案例研究提供了对PME的一瞥,并为PME的后续步骤提供了证据。在未来,PME致力于深思熟虑地发展期刊;多样化和教育编辑团队,作者,和审稿人,解放和共享期刊数据。
    To conduct a bibliometric case study of the journal Perspectives on Medical Education (PME) to provide insights into the journal\'s inner workings and to \"take stock\" of where PME is today, where it has been, and where it might go.
    Data, including bibliographic metadata, reviewer and author details, and downloads, were collected for manuscripts submitted to and published in PME from the journal\'s Editorial Manager and Web of Science. Gender of authors and reviewers was predicted using Genderize.io. To visualize and analyze collaboration patterns, citation relationships and term co-occurrence social network analyses (SNA) were conducted. VOSviewer was used to visualize the social network maps.
    Between 2012-2019 PME received, on average, 260 manuscripts annually (range = 73-402). Submissions were received from authors in 81 countries with the majority in the United States (US), United Kingdom, and the Netherlands. PME published 518 manuscripts with authors based in 31 countries, the majority being in the Netherlands, US, and Canada. PME articles were downloaded 717,613 times (mean per document: 1388). In total 1201 (55% women) unique peer reviewers were invited and 649 (57% women) completed reviews; 1227 (49% women) unique authors published in PME. SNA revealed that PME authors were quite collaborative, with most authoring articles with others and only a minority (n = 57) acting as single authors.
    This case study provides a glimpse into PME and offers evidence for PME\'s next steps. In the future, PME is committed to growing the journal thoughtfully; diversifying and educating editorial teams, authors, and reviewers, and liberating and sharing journal data.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Pubmed)

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    描述与前两年相比,在covid-19大流行期间,妇女所担任的重要作者职位以及妇女共同创作手稿的总体百分比。
    横断面研究。
    九种专家和两种大型普通医学期刊。
    在2018年1月1日至2021年5月31日之间提交的研究手稿的作者。
    主要结果:第一作者的性别。
    最后一位作者和相应作者的性别;“大流行前”期间(2018年1月1日至2019年12月31日)和“covid-19”和“non-covid-19”手稿中作者署名的女性人数(百分比)。
    共包括63259份手稿。女性人数第一,最后,通讯作者分别为1313(37.1%),996(27.9%),和1119(31.1%)的covid-19手稿(2020年1月至5月的最低值:230(29.4%),165(21.1%),和185(22.9%),与8583(44.9%)相比,6118(31.2%),和7273(37.3%)的大流行非covid-19手稿和12724(46.0%),8923(31.4%),大流行前手稿为10981份(38.9%)。与大流行前(2020年1月至5月最低:0.55,98.75%置信区间0.43至0.70)相比,所有组的Covid-19手稿中有女性第一作者的调整后优势比<1.00(P<0.001)。与大流行前(2020年1月至5月的最低值:最后一位作者的0.74(0.57至0.97)和0.61(0.49至0.77))相比,Covid-19手稿在所有时间段(最后一位作者的最近两个时间段除外)的调整后优势比显著较低。与大流行前的手稿相比,大流行的非covid-19手稿的优势比没有显着差异。与大流行前(36.4%)和非covid-19大流行手稿(2020年1月至5月为33.3%)相比,covid-19手稿的女性作者比例中位数较低(2020年1月至5月为33.3%)。与大流行早期(2020年1月至5月)相比,最近一段时间(2021年2月至5月),所有重要作者职位的性别差异和署名中女性作者的比例缩小,与大流行前手稿观察到的值非常相似。
    在covid-19研究中,女性作为合著者和重要作者职位的代表性不足,参与学术推广和授予研究补助金的人员需要纠正这种性别差异。在大流行期间的某些时间点提交的非covid-19相关手稿上,与大流行之前相比,妇女获得了一些重要的作者职位。
    To describe prominent authorship positions held by women and the overall percentage of women co-authoring manuscripts submitted during the covid-19 pandemic compared with the previous two years.
    Cross sectional study.
    Nine specialist and two large general medical journals.
    Authors of research manuscripts submitted between 1 January 2018 and 31 May 2021.
    Primary outcome: first author\'s gender.
    last and corresponding authors\' gender; number (percentage) of women on authorship byline in \"pre-pandemic\" period (1 January 2018 to 31 December 2019) and in \"covid-19\" and \"non-covid-19\" manuscripts during pandemic.
    A total of 63 259 manuscripts were included. The number of female first, last, and corresponding authors respectively were 1313 (37.1%), 996 (27.9%), and 1119 (31.1%) for covid-19 manuscripts (lowest values in Jan-May 2020: 230 (29.4%), 165 (21.1%), and 185 (22.9%)), compared with 8583 (44.9%), 6118 (31.2%), and 7273 (37.3%) for pandemic non-covid-19 manuscripts and 12 724 (46.0%), 8923 (31.4%), and 10 981 (38.9%) for pre-pandemic manuscripts. The adjusted odds ratio of having a female first author in covid-19 manuscripts was <1.00 in all groups (P<0.001) compared with pre-pandemic (lowest in Jan-May 2020: 0.55, 98.75% confidence interval 0.43 to 0.70). The adjusted odds ratio of having a woman as last or corresponding author was significantly lower for covid-19 manuscripts in all time periods (except for the two most recent periods for last author) compared with pre-pandemic (lowest values in Jan-May 2020: 0.74 (0.57 to 0.97) for last and 0.61 (0.49 to 0.77) for corresponding author). The odds ratios for pandemic non-covid-19 manuscripts were not significantly different compared with pre-pandemic manuscripts. The median percentage of female authors on the byline was lower for covid-19 manuscripts (28.6% in Jan-May 2020) compared with pre-pandemic (36.4%) and non-covid-19 pandemic manuscripts (33.3% in Jan-May 2020). Gender disparities in all prominent authorship positions and the proportion of women authors on the byline narrowed in the most recent period (Feb-May 2021) compared with the early pandemic period (Jan-May 2020) and were very similar to values observed for pre-pandemic manuscripts.
    Women have been underrepresented as co-authors and in prominent authorship positions in covid-19 research, and this gender disparity needs to be corrected by those involved in academic promotion and awarding of research grants. Women attained some prominent authorship positions equally or more frequently than before the pandemic on non-covid-19 related manuscripts submitted at some time points during the pandemic.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Pubmed)

公众号