Gender, Racial, and Academic Authorship Diversity in the Otolaryngology Clinical Trial Literature

Objective To investigate the state and trajectory of gender, racial, and academic authorship diversity in the otolaryngology clinical trial literature over the past 2 decades. Study Design Bibliometric analysis. Setting Otolaryngology clinical trial literature. Methods Clinical trials published in the 9 major otolaryngology journals between 2000 and 2020 were included. The gender, race, and academic seniority of the first, senior, and corresponding authors were recorded for each trial. Multivariable regression models assessed the temporal trajectory of authorship diversity over time and the disparity in citations across author characteristics. Models adjusted for relevant confounders pertaining to publication environment and study design. Results Among 2117 trials, first, senior, and corresponding authors have been predominantly White (60%-64%), male (76%-80%), and attending physicians (63%-69%). Trials led by Black (<1%) and Hispanic (<5%) authors were severely underrepresented. Over time, the representation of female (adj. beta 0.8%, 95% CI [0.5%, 1.1%] per year), Asian (1.0% [0.7%, 1.3%] per year), and MD resident (0.4% [0.1%, 0.7%] per year) first authorship increased, but representation of female (0.2% [-0.1%, 0.5%] per year), Black (0% [-0.03%, 0.02%] per year), Hispanic (-0.2% [-0.33%, -0.02%] per year) senior authorship remained persistently low. Asian-led trials were cited significantly less compared to White-led trials even after adjusting for study design and publication year (aIRR 0.82 [0.73, 0.92]). Conclusions Despite promising signs of improving authorship diversity over time, persistent underrepresentation of female, Black, Hispanic senior authorship underscore the need for additional efforts to diversify the otolaryngology clinical science workforce.