Gender Disparity in Full Professor Rank Among Academic Physicians: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

PURPOSE: The gender gap in promotion in academic medicine is well established. However, few studies have reported gender differences in promotion adjusted for scholarly production and national or international reputation, namely, career duration, publications, grant funding, and leadership positions. The authors performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the differences between men and women in achieving benchmarks for promotion and analyze where such differences lie geographically and within specialties. METHOD: A systematic search of Academic Search Premier, Business Source Complete, Cochrane Library, ERIC, GenderWatch, Google Scholar, Embase, MEDLINE, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science was conducted from inception to August 17, 2022. All studies that reported the number of male and female full professors on medical school faculty were included. The primary outcome was the adjusted odds ratio (AOR) for promotion to full professor for women compared with men. RESULTS: Two hundred forty-four studies met the inclusion criteria. The unadjusted OR for promotion to full professor for women was 0.38 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.36-0.41). Sixteen studies reported an AOR. The pooled AOR of promotion for women to full professor was 0.60 (95% CI, 0.46-0.77). The AOR for promotion to full professor was 0.55 (95% CI, 0.34-0.88) in surgery and 0.80 (95% CI, 0.57-1.11) in internal medicine. Statistical heterogeneity was high ( Q = 66.6, I2 = 79.4%, P < .001). On meta-regression, 77% of the heterogeneity was from studies outside the United States, where more disparity was reported (AOR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.22-0.38). CONCLUSIONS: Most studies continued to find decreased promotion of women. Gender disparity was particularly notable in surgery and in studies from outside the United States. The results suggest that differences in promotion were due to differences in productivity and leadership and to gender bias.

Risk of Intestinal Necrosis With Sodium Polystyrene Sulfonate: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Reports of severe gastrointestinal side effects associated with sodium polystyrene sulfonate (SPS), particularly intestinal necrosis, have led some to recommend costlier alternative medications. No prior systematic review has included studies with controls reporting intestinal necrosis rates associated with SPS. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted using Cochrane Library, Embase, Medline, Google Scholar, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science Core Collection from database inception through October 4, 2020. We included any clinical trial, cohort, or case-control study reporting an association between SPS and intestinal necrosis or severe gastrointestinal side effects. RESULTS: Six studies including 26,716 patients treated with SPS with controls met inclusion criteria. The pooled odds ratio (OR) of intestinal necrosis was 1.43 (95% CI, 0.39-5.20). The pooled hazard ratio (HR) for intestinal necrosis from the two studies that performed survival analysis was 2.00 (95% CI, 0.45-8.78). The pooled HR for the composite outcome of severe gastrointestinal adverse events was 1.46 (95% CI, 1.01-2.11). CONCLUSION: Based on our review of six studies, the risk of intestinal necrosis with SPS is not statistically greater than controls, although there was a statistically significantly increased risk for the composite outcome of severe gastrointestinal side effects based on two studies. Because of the risk of bias from potential confounding and selective reporting, the overall strength of evidence to support an association between SPS and intestinal necrosis or other severe gastrointestinal side effects is low. PROSPERO registration CRD42020213119.