Lack of Gender Diversity Among Systematic Reviews Authors in the Urological Literature (1998-2021).

Purpose: Gender equity is a key performance metric in research, including systematic reviews, and is increasingly noted in publications. We performed this study to assess gender parity in scientific authorship of systematic reviews published in the urological literature.

Materials And Methods: We identified all published systematic reviews addressing questions of therapy/prevention in 5 major urological journals (®, , , , and ) from 1998 to 2021. We determined gender of first, second, corresponding, and any author as a binary variable (woman or man) using a predefined algorithm.

Results: We included 523 systematic reviews. The main journal contributors were (32.6%), (22.0%), and (19.5%). Slightly more than half (51.8%) of reviews included at least 1 woman coauthor, 37.5% did not, and in 10.7% it was unclear. First, second, and corresponding authors were women in 13.7%, 12.4%, and 4.7%, respectively, and the median number of women contributors was 1 (interquartile range 0-2). Women-first authorship for the time period 1998-2012 was 13.0% ( = .139), and senior authorship was 5.0% ( = .270). In 2013-2016 it was 11.0% and 4.1%, and in 2017-2021 it increased somewhat to 16.5% and 5.1% ( = .270), respectively.

Conclusions: The number of women involved in systematic reviews is low and has not improved over time. Since scientific authorship is important for academic advancement, this finding may contribute to the underrepresentation of women in academic leadership positions. Efforts to improve gender diversity in urology should include more collaboration across genders.