Gender and Authorship in Pediatric Critical Care Randomized Control Trials.

OBJECTIVES: To examine the gender distribution of authorship of pediatric critical care randomized control trials. DATA SOURCES: The 415 randomized control trials in pediatric critical care published before 2019. STUDY SELECTION: We included all randomized control trials enrolling children in a PICU. We used PICUtrials.net, which uses comprehensive search strategies of multiple databases, to identify published randomized control trials. DATA EXTRACTION: We manually extracted the name and profession of each listed author from each publication and classified each author as male or female based on their name. RESULTS: We included 2,146 authors and were able to classify 1,888 (88%) as men or women. Overall, 38% of authors were women, this varied with the authorship position: 37% of first, 38% of middle, and 25% of last authors were women (p < 0.001). The three most common professions were physician (63%), nonclinician (11%), and nurse (6%)-of which 30%, 45%, and 97%, respectively, were women. The percentage of female authorship overall has increased from 28% in 1985-1989 to 39% in 2015-2018 (p for trend = 0.004). There were no significant differences in the characteristics of randomized control trials published with a female first or last author versus those with both male first and last authors with respect to the median number of children randomized (60 vs. 50; p = 0.41), multicentred trials (17% vs. 24%; p = 0.12), trials at low risk of bias (50% vs. 66%; p = 0.26), reporting any funding (55% vs. 51%; p = 0.66), or median number of citations per year (1.5 vs. 2.4; p = 0.09). CONCLUSIONS: Although increasing over time, the percentage of researchers publishing pediatric critical care randomized control trials who are women still lags behind the percentage clinicians who are women. Trials that female researchers publish are similar in characteristics and impact as male researchers. Further work should identify barriers to gender diversity and potential solutions in pediatric critical care research.

Research Collaboration in Pediatric Critical Care Randomized Controlled Trials: A Social Network Analysis of Coauthorship.

OBJECTIVES: Clinical research is a collaborative enterprise; researchers benefit from the expertise, experience, and resources of their collaborators. We sought to describe the extent and patterns of collaboration among pediatric critical care trialists, and to identify the most influential individuals, centers, and countries. DESIGN: Social network analysis of coauthorship. DATA SOURCES: Publications of pediatric critical care randomized controlled trials (1986-2018). DATA EXTRACTION: We manually extracted the names of all authors and their affiliations. We used productivity (number of randomized controlled trials), influence (number of citations), and four measures of prominence in the social network (degree, betweenness, closeness, and eigenvector centrality) to identify the most influential individuals. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: From 415 randomized controlled trials in pediatric critical care, we identified 2,176 trialists from 377 centers in 43 countries. The coauthorship network is highly disconnected and dominated by a single large cluster of trialists publishing 142 (34%) of the randomized controlled trials. However, 119 (29%) of the randomized controlled trials were published by 28 smaller clusters-a median (interquartile range) of 3 (2-4) randomized controlled trials each. The remaining 154 (37%) randomized controlled trials were coauthored by researchers publishing a single randomized controlled trial each. This overall structure has remained constant with the publication of new randomized controlled trials over 33 years. The most influential trialists and centers varied according to the metric we used; only one trialist and three centers ranked in the top 10 for all measures of influence. Thirty-five of the 40 trialists (88%) ranking in the top 10 of any of the measures were from the United States, the United Kingdom, and Canada. CONCLUSIONS: Pediatric critical care has made considerable progress in the number of trialists and randomized controlled trials, but the research enterprise remains highly clustered and fragmented, particularly geographically. Efforts to further increase the quantity and quality of research in the field should include steps to increase the level and range of collaboration.