Authorship Diversity in Urology: 1998-2022 Cochrane Review Analysis

What is it about?

The study analyzed the authorship diversity of urology-related Cochrane reviews, which are high-quality systematic reviews that impact policy and practice globally. The study found that only 1.94% of co-authors were from low-middle-income countries (LMICs) and women were underrepresented as co-authors, first authors, and corresponding authors. The study also found that the UK, the USA, and Germany together comprised >60% of all co-authors. The study highlights the significant academic disparity for women in urology and the challenges faced by LMIC clinicians in conducting and publishing original research.

Featured Image

Photo by Kyle Glenn on Unsplash

Photo by Kyle Glenn on Unsplash

Why is it important?

This research is important because it highlights the underrepresentation of women and researchers from low-middle income countries (LMICs) in urology literature and Cochrane reviews, which can impact their professional success and the visibility and recognition of their expertise. This study provides a comprehensive analysis of authorship diversity in urology-related Cochrane Reviews, which can potentially promote inclusive academic involvement. Key Takeaways: 1. Women are underrepresented in urology literature and Cochrane reviews, comprising <20% of co-authors and 15% of senior authors during 2015-2020. 2. Only 28 co-authors (1.94%) from LMICs were included in the study, with the top 10 countries having the highest proportion of co-authors being from high-income countries. 3. The UK, the USA, and Germany together comprised >60% of all co-authors, while the representation of LMIC authors was consistently ≤2%. 4. Women made up 41.4% of co-authors, 44.8% of first authors, and 40.4% of corresponding authors, with fluctuating proportions but no increasing trends in female authorship. 5. The gender ascertainment rate was 94.7% for coauthors of Cochrane Urology Group (CUG)-published reviews and 98.1% for non-CUG-published reviews. 6. CUG-published reviews had a higher proportion of female authors (25.2%) compared to non-CUG-published reviews (54.1%).