Gender Disparity in Leading Authorship of Critical Care Clinical Trials: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

In critical care medicine, research trials serve as crucial avenues for disseminating knowledge, influencing clinical practices, and fostering innovation. Notably, a significant gender imbalance exists within this field, potentially mirrored in the authorship of critical care research. This study aimed to investigate an exploration to ascertain the presence and extent of female representation in first and senior authorship roles within critical care literature. To this end, a systematic search was conducted across PubMed, Google Scholar, and Web of Science databases for original articles published up to February 2024, coupled with a methodological quality assessment via the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) and statistical analyses through Review Manager software (RevMan, version 5.4.1, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2020). The study's findings, distilled from seven studies included in the final analysis, reveal a pronounced gender disparity. Specifically, in critical care literature examining mixed populations, female first authors were significantly less common than their male counterparts, with an odds ratio (OR) of 4.25 (95% confidence interval (CI): 3.18-5.68; p < 0.00001). Conversely, pediatric critical care studies did not show a significant difference in gender distribution among first authors (OR: 1.37; 95% CI: 0.31-6.10; p = 0.68). The investigation also highlighted a stark underrepresentation of female senior authors in critical care research across both mixed (OR: 11.67; 95% CI: 7.76-17.56; p < 0.00001) and pediatric populations (OR: 5.41; 95% CI: 1.88-15.56; p = 0.002). These findings underscore the persistent underrepresentation of women in critical care literature authorship and their slow progression into leadership roles, as evidenced by the disproportionately low number of female senior authors.