Trends in Female Authorship Within Urologic Literature: A Comparison of 2012 and 2017.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate trends in female authorship in the recent urologic literature. METHODS: We examined articles published in 2012 and 2017 from 5 urologic journals: Journal of Urology, Journal of Endourology, Neurourology and Urodynamics, Urologic Oncology, and Urology. Gender was recorded for first, supplemental, and last authors. Articles were further categorized by subspecialty focus of the published article. Chi-square tests and multiple logistic regression modeling were used to assess for differences in female authorship by year, journal, and article subspecialty. RESULTS: One thousand four hundred and thirty-three and 1374 articles were published in 2012 and 2017, respectively. There was a significant increase in all female authorship categories between years: first (19%-25%), last (12-16%), and any (67%-74%) (P<.01, all). By journal, the highest proportion of articles with any female authors for both years was in Neurourology and Urodynamics (80%, 2012; 85%, 2017) while lowest was in Journal of Endourology (49%, 2012; 54%, 2017). Likewise, female authorship was generally higher in female/voiding dysfunction /incontinence and lower in endourology subspecialty articles. Controlling for journal and subspecialty, multiple logistic regression analysis showed no change in last authorship between years. CONCLUSION: Overall female authorship in the urologic literature has increased in recent years. However, after controlling for journal and subspecialty we found no increase in female last authorship between years, suggesting that disparities in senior authorships exist based on journal and subspecialty topic. Our findings further suggest an authorship plateau, highlighting the importance of efforts to optimize advancement and promotion of women in academic urology.

Publication of Positive Studies in the Urologic Literature.

OBJECTIVE: To assessed rates of positive publications within the urologic literature, comparing the years 2012 and 2017. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All studies published in Journal of Urology, Neurourology and Urodynamics, Urologic Oncology, Journal of Endourology, and Urology in 2012 and 2017 were reviewed. The primary study outcome was proportion of positive studies. Additional article characteristics, including associated citations and subspecialty focus, were recorded and statistical analyses used to assess for differences in negative publication rates based on these variables. RESULTS: A total of 1,796 articles meeting inclusion criteria were analyzed (2012, 959; 2017, 837). The overall proportion of positive studies decreased in comparison of 2012 and 2017. (90%-86%, P =.01). A statistically significant decrease was seen in 2 of 5 journals: Neurourology and Urodynamics (97%-87%, P = .01) and Journal of Endourology (93%-83%, P <.01). There were no significant differences in associated citations for positive vs negative studies in either year. Logistic regression focused on year and journal revealed that studies published in 2017 and Urology were more likely to be negative. CONCLUSION: The vast majority of studies within the urologic literature are positive, with only a small increase in negative study publication comparing 2012 vs 2017. Continued efforts are needed to identify publication bias and promote dissemination of negative research findings.

Urinary Incontinence Research: Compliance With Research Standards for Clinical Studies.

OBJECTIVE: To perform an updated literature review to assess compliance with outcomes use and reporting guidelines. In 1997, the Urodynamics Society recommended standards of efficacy to be used for evaluation of treatment outcomes in urinary incontinence (UI). Studies published shortly after the release of these standards reported generally low rates of adherence. METHODS: We reviewed all 2017 articles related to UI in 3 urologic journals (Journal of Urology [JU], Neurourology and Urodynamics [NU], and Urology [UR]). Articles were assessed for compliance with 19 standards across 3 categories (methodology, pretreatment, and post-treatment). Analysis focused on overall and category specific compliance, as well as comparison of compliance between journals. RESULTS: A total of 78 articles met inclusion criteria for analysis. The mean overall compliance was 52% for all standards. JU demonstrated a higher compliance (63%) as compared to NU (50%) and UR (46%) (P <.01). No articles reviewed demonstrated 100% compliance with all standards. Only 23%, 6%, and 12% of JU, NU, and UR articles, respectively, demonstrated at least 75% compliance with all standards. In comparison of subcategory compliance, JU demonstrated a statistically higher methodology compliance (P <.01). In contrast, compliance with both pre- and post-treatment standards across all 3 journals demonstrated no statistically significant differences. CONCLUSION: Overall, we found that a significant percentage of recent study on UI fails to meet suggested standards for use and reporting of outcomes. These data suggest that continued efforts are needed to improve the quality and reporting of UI research.