ABSTRACT
Background Women continue to be underrepresented in cardiology and even more so in leadership positions. We evaluated the trends and gender differences in the guideline writing groups of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA), Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS), and European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guidelines from 2006 to 2020. Methods and Results We extracted all guidelines authors from 2006 to 2020, assessed their gender from publicly available profiles, and compared differences based on subspecialties and specific societies. Stratified and trend analyses were performed using χ2 and average annual percentage change/average 5 year percentage change. A total of 80 ACC/AHA (1288 authors [28% women]), 64 CCS (988 authors [26% women]), and 59 ESC (1157 authors [16% women]) guidelines were analyzed. A significant increase in inclusion of women was seen in ACC/AHA (12.6% [2006] to 42.6% [2020]; average annual percentage change, 6.6% [2.3% to 11.1%]; P=0.005) and ESC (7.1% [2006] to 25.8% [2020]; average annual percentage change, 6.6% [0.2% to 13.5%]; P=0.04), but the trend remained similar in CCS (20.6% [2006] to 36.3% [2020]; average annual percentage change, -0.1% (-3.7% to 3.5%); P=0.94), guideline authors. More women were coauthors in the ACC/AHA and ESC guidelines when women were chairs of guidelines. There was a persistent disparity of women among guideline authors for general cardiology and all subspecialties, except for pediatric cardiology and heart failure guidelines. The appointment of women authors as a chair was significantly low in all societies (22.4% [ACC/AHA], 16.9% [CCS], and 7.2% [ESC]; P=0.008). Conclusions There is a significant disparity in the inclusion of women on all national guideline committees, in addition to serving as a chair of cardiology guidelines. Further advocacy is required to promote equity, diversity, and inclusion in our cardiology guidelines globally.
Subject(s)
Authorship , Cardiology , American Heart Association , Canada , Child , Female , Humans , Male , Sex Factors , United StatesABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The level of representation of women in cardiology remains low compared to that of men, particularly in leadership positions. We evaluated gender disparity in the authorship of Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS) guidelines. METHODS: All CCS guidelines from 2001-2020 were identified. Gender was assessed based on pronoun use in the biographies and social media of the authors. Only primary panel authors were included in our analysis. Stratified analyses were performed based on subspecialties. RESULTS: A total of 76 guidelines were identified, with 1172 authors (26% women, 74% men, P < 0.0001), with no significant change in percentage of women authors over 2 decades, (37.1% in 2001, 36.3% in 2020, P = 0.34). Inclusion of women as authors occurred less frequently than inclusion of men in general cardiology guidelines (20.1% vs 79.9%, P < 0.0001) and all subspecialties-heart failure (36.4% vs 63.6%, P < 0.0001), interventional cardiology (12.6% vs 87.4%, P < 0.0001), electrophysiology (20.2% vs 79.8%, P < 0.0001), and pediatric cardiology (41.7% vs 58.3%, P = 0.02). It was less likely for women to be a chair or cochair of a guideline writing committee, compared with men (20.1% vs 79.8%, P < 0.0001). There were 609 unique authors (25.6% women, 74.4% men, P < 0.0001), 542 unique medical doctorate (MD) authors (20.7% women, 79.3% men, P < 0.0001), and 67 unique non-MD authors (65.7% women, 34.3% men, P = 0.0003). CONCLUSIONS: There is a persistent shortfall in the inclusion of women authors for CCS guidelines, which has not changed over time. Further efforts are required to promote women's inclusion in leadership roles, which may lead to authorship of the guidelines.
INTRODUCTION: La représentation des femmes en cardiologie demeure faible par rapport à celle des hommes, particulièrement dans les positions de leadership. Nous avons évalué la disparité entre les sexes de la paternité des lignes directrices de la Société canadienne de cardiologie (SCC). MÉTHODES: Nous avons relevé toutes les lignes directrices de la SCC de 2001 à 2020. Nous avons déterminé le sexe en fonction de l'utilisation du pronom dans les biographies et les médias sociaux des auteurs. Seuls les auteurs du panel principal ont été ajoutés à notre analyse. Nous avons réalisé les analyses stratifiées en fonction des sous-spécialités. RÉSULTATS: Nous avons relevé un total de 76 lignes directrices, qui regroupaient 1 172 auteurs (26 % de femmes, 74 % d'hommes, P < 0,0001). Par conséquent, il n'y avait eu aucun changement significatif dans le pourcentage des autrices au cours de deux décennies (37,1 % en 2001, 36,3 % en 2020, P = 0,34). L'intégration d'autrices est en général apparue moins fréquemment que l'intégration d'auteurs dans les lignes directrices de cardiologie (20,1 % vs 79,9 %, P < 0,0001) et de toutes les sous-spécialités (insuffisance cardiaque [36,4 % vs 63,6 %, P < 0,0001], cardiologie interventionnelle [12,6 % vs 87,4 %, P < 0,0001], électrophysiologie [20,2 % vs 79,8 %, P < 0,0001] et cardiologie pédiatrique [41,7 % vs 58,3 %, P = 0,02]). Il était moins probable que les femmes président ou co-président le comité de rédaction des lignes directrices que les hommes (20,1 % vs 79,8 %, P < 0,0001). Il y avait 609 auteurs individuels (25,6 % de femmes, 74,4 % d'hommes, P < 0,0001), 542 auteurs médecins (M.D.) individuels (20,7 % de femmes, 79,3 % d'hommes, P < 0,0001) et 67 auteurs non médecins individuels (65,7 % de femmes, 34,3 % d'hommes, P = 0,0003). CONCLUSIONS: Des lacunes dans l'intégration des autrices aux lignes directrices de la SCC persistent et demeurent inchangées depuis des années. D'autres efforts sont nécessaires pour encourager l'intégration des femmes dans des rôles de leadership, qui pourront mener à la paternité des lignes directrices.
Subject(s)
Cardiology , Cardiovascular Diseases , American Heart Association , Educational Status , Humans , United States/epidemiology , WritingABSTRACT
There has been a rapid increase in resting-state functional magnetic resonance imaging (rs-fMRI) literature in the past few years. We aim to highlight the variability in the current reporting practices of rs-fMRI acquisition and preprocessing parameters. The PubMed database was searched for the selection of appropriate articles in the rs-fMRI literature and the most recent 100 articles were selected based on our criteria. These articles were evaluated based on a checklist for reporting of certain preprocessing steps. All of the studies reported the temporal resolution for the scan and the software used for the analysis. Less than half of the studies reported physiologic monitoring, despiking, global signal regression, framewise displacement, and volume censoring. A majority of the studies mentioned the scanning duration, eye status, and smoothing kernel. Overall, we demonstrate the wide variability in reporting of preprocessing methods in rs-fMRI studies. Although there might be potential variability in reporting across studies due to individual requirements for a study, we suggest the need for standardizing reporting guidelines to ensure reproducibility.