You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Correspondence
Gender gap in rheumatology: speaker representation at annual conferences
  1. Kanika Monga1,
  2. Jean Liew2
  1. 1 Rheumatology, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, Texas, USA
  2. 2 Medicine, Division of Rheumatology, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA
  1. Correspondence to Dr Jean Liew, Medicine, Division of Rheumatology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195-7230, USA; liew.jw{at}gmail.com

https://doi.org/10.1136/annrheumdis-2020-217673

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    Adami et al’s report of gender disparities in the first authorship of rheumatology guidelines was very interesting to read.1 The authors highlight a fundamental issue: the existence of a gender gap—that is, proportionately more male than female physicians—within the authorship ranks in rheumatology. We had thought that it would be intriguing to investigate whether this difference permeates at the national conference level as well. Recent studies have quantified the gender gap among speakers at academic conferences in other specialties. The most extensive study of 181 medical conferences held in North America over the course of a decade (2007–2017) found an increase in the proportion of female …

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Twitter @DrKanikaMonga, @rheum_cat

    • Contributors Both authors contributed equally to this work. Both were involved in study design, data collection, data analysis and drafting the manuscript.

    • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Patient and public involvement Patients and/or the public were not involved in the design, or conduct, or reporting, or dissemination plans of this research.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.