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.

Estimated mortality with early empirical antibiotic coverage of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in hospitalized patients with bacterial infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to estimate the effect of early active empirical antibiotics for MRSA on mortality, both in patients admitted with MRSA infections and in patients admitted with common infectious syndromes, for whom the causative pathogen may not have been MRSA. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted using Embase, MEDLINE, PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane, Scopus and Google Scholar from the earliest entry through to 26 April 2022. We included studies of patients hospitalized with culture-proven MRSA infections that compared mortality rates depending on whether patients received active empirical antibiotics. The primary outcome was the adjusted OR for mortality with early active empirical antibiotics. After performing random-effects meta-analysis, we estimated the absolute risk reduction in mortality with initial empirical MRSA coverage for common infectious syndromes based on the prevalence of MRSA and baseline mortality rate for each syndrome, as reported in the medical literature. RESULTS: Of an initial 2136 unique manuscripts, 37 studies (11 661 participants) met our inclusion criteria. Fifteen studies (6066 participants) reported adjusted OR of mortality. The pooled adjusted OR for mortality was 0.64 (95% CI, 0.48-0.84), favouring active empirical antibiotics. The estimated absolute mortality benefit was 0% for patients with pneumonia, 0.1% (95% CI, 0.04-0.2) for non-critically ill patients with soft tissue infections, 0.04% (95% CI, 0.01-0.05) for non-critically ill patients with urinary tract infections, 0.6% (95% CI, 0.2-1.0) for patients with septic shock, and 1.0% (95% CI, 0.3-1.4) for patients with catheter-related infections admitted to ICUs. CONCLUSIONS: For the three most common infections in the hospital, the absolute benefit on mortality of empirical antibiotics against MRSA is 0.1% or less. Meaningful benefit of empirical antimicrobials against MRSA is limited to patients with approximately 30% mortality and 10% prevalence of MRSA. Avoiding empirical antibiotics against MRSA for low-risk infections would substantially reduce the use of anti-MRSA therapy.