5
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Sex Differences in Academic Productivity Across Academic Ranks and Specialties in Academic Medicine : A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

      research-article
      , MTM 1 , , MD, MS 2 , , PhD, MS 3 , , MD 4 , , MD, DPhil 5 , 6 , , MD, MS 1 ,
      JAMA Network Open
      American Medical Association

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Key Points

          Question

          What are the sex differences in citation-related publication productivity across academic ranks and specialties in academic medicine?

          Findings

          This systematic review and meta-analysis found that women had lower publication productivity than men. When productivity was evaluated separately by specialty, women had lower productivity than men in all analyzed specialties except for plastic surgery; when productivity was organized by rank, women had lower productivity than men at the ranks of assistant professor, associate professor, and professor.

          Meaning

          These findings suggest that future investigation should be conducted regarding the causes of women’s decreased citation-related publication productivity within the field and interventions should be developed to provide a more equitable environment for all physicians, regardless of sex.

          Abstract

          Importance

          Despite equal numbers of men and women entering medical school, women are underrepresented in the upper echelons of academic medicine and receive less compensation and research funding. Citation-related publication productivity metrics, such as the h-index, are increasingly used for hiring, salary, grants, retention, promotion, and tenure decisions. Exploring sex differences in these metrics across academic medicine provides deeper insight into why differences are observed in career outcomes.

          Objective

          To systematically examine the available literature on sex differences in h-index of academic faculty physicians across all medical specialties and all levels of academic rank.

          Data Sources

          Medical literature with the term h-index found in PubMed and published between January 1, 2009, and December 31, 2018, was used.

          Study Selection

          A PICOS (Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcomes), PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses), and MOOSE (Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology) selection protocol was used to find observational studies that published h-indexes for faculty physicians that were stratified by sex. Studies were excluded if they were review articles, retracted, or unavailable online. Ultimately, 14 of 786 studies (1.78%) met the inclusion criteria.

          Data Extraction and Synthesis

          Data from 9 studies across 16 specialties were examined using weighted random-effects meta-analyses. Five studies were excluded because of overlapping specialties with another study or because they were missing appropriate statistics for the meta-analysis. Four of these studies were included in qualitative synthesis to bring the total to 13 studies.

          Main Outcomes and Measures

          The primary study outcome was the h-index.

          Results

          The meta-analysis included 10 665 North American unique academic physicians across 9 different studies from the years 2009 to 2018. Of the 10 665 physicians, 2655 (24.89%) were women. Summary effect sizes for mean h-indexes of men and women and mean h-index difference between men and women were determined for all faculty physicians and at each academic rank. Overall, female faculty had lower h-indexes than male faculty (mean difference, −4.09; 95% CI, −5.44 to −2.73; P < .001). When adjusting for academic rank, female faculty still had lower h-indexes than male faculty at the ranks of assistant professor (mean difference, −1.3; 95% CI, −1.90 to −0.72; P < .001), associate professor (mean difference, −2.09; 95% CI, −3.40 to −0.78; P = .002), and professor (mean difference, −3.41; 95% CI, −6.24 to −0.58; P = .02).

          Conclusions and Relevance

          In this systematic review and meta-analysis, women had lower h-indexes than men across most specialties and at all academic ranks, but it is unclear why these differences exist. These findings suggest that future investigation should be conducted regarding the causes of lower h-indexes in women and that interventions should be developed to provide a more equitable environment for all physicians regardless of sex.

          Abstract

          This systematic review and meta-analysis examines the available literature on sex differences in h-index, a measure of citation-related publication productivity, of academic faculty physicians across all medical specialties and all levels of academic rank.

          Related collections

          Most cited references73

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement

          Introduction Systematic reviews and meta-analyses have become increasingly important in health care. Clinicians read them to keep up to date with their field [1],[2], and they are often used as a starting point for developing clinical practice guidelines. Granting agencies may require a systematic review to ensure there is justification for further research [3], and some health care journals are moving in this direction [4]. As with all research, the value of a systematic review depends on what was done, what was found, and the clarity of reporting. As with other publications, the reporting quality of systematic reviews varies, limiting readers' ability to assess the strengths and weaknesses of those reviews. Several early studies evaluated the quality of review reports. In 1987, Mulrow examined 50 review articles published in four leading medical journals in 1985 and 1986 and found that none met all eight explicit scientific criteria, such as a quality assessment of included studies [5]. In 1987, Sacks and colleagues [6] evaluated the adequacy of reporting of 83 meta-analyses on 23 characteristics in six domains. Reporting was generally poor; between one and 14 characteristics were adequately reported (mean = 7.7; standard deviation = 2.7). A 1996 update of this study found little improvement [7]. In 1996, to address the suboptimal reporting of meta-analyses, an international group developed a guidance called the QUOROM Statement (QUality Of Reporting Of Meta-analyses), which focused on the reporting of meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials [8]. In this article, we summarize a revision of these guidelines, renamed PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses), which have been updated to address several conceptual and practical advances in the science of systematic reviews (Box 1). Box 1: Conceptual Issues in the Evolution from QUOROM to PRISMA Completing a Systematic Review Is an Iterative Process The conduct of a systematic review depends heavily on the scope and quality of included studies: thus systematic reviewers may need to modify their original review protocol during its conduct. Any systematic review reporting guideline should recommend that such changes can be reported and explained without suggesting that they are inappropriate. The PRISMA Statement (Items 5, 11, 16, and 23) acknowledges this iterative process. Aside from Cochrane reviews, all of which should have a protocol, only about 10% of systematic reviewers report working from a protocol [22]. Without a protocol that is publicly accessible, it is difficult to judge between appropriate and inappropriate modifications. Conduct and Reporting Research Are Distinct Concepts This distinction is, however, less straightforward for systematic reviews than for assessments of the reporting of an individual study, because the reporting and conduct of systematic reviews are, by nature, closely intertwined. For example, the failure of a systematic review to report the assessment of the risk of bias in included studies may be seen as a marker of poor conduct, given the importance of this activity in the systematic review process [37]. Study-Level Versus Outcome-Level Assessment of Risk of Bias For studies included in a systematic review, a thorough assessment of the risk of bias requires both a “study-level” assessment (e.g., adequacy of allocation concealment) and, for some features, a newer approach called “outcome-level” assessment. An outcome-level assessment involves evaluating the reliability and validity of the data for each important outcome by determining the methods used to assess them in each individual study [38]. The quality of evidence may differ across outcomes, even within a study, such as between a primary efficacy outcome, which is likely to be very carefully and systematically measured, and the assessment of serious harms [39], which may rely on spontaneous reports by investigators. This information should be reported to allow an explicit assessment of the extent to which an estimate of effect is correct [38]. Importance of Reporting Biases Different types of reporting biases may hamper the conduct and interpretation of systematic reviews. Selective reporting of complete studies (e.g., publication bias) [28] as well as the more recently empirically demonstrated “outcome reporting bias” within individual studies [40],[41] should be considered by authors when conducting a systematic review and reporting its results. Though the implications of these biases on the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews themselves are unclear, some previous research has identified that selective outcome reporting may occur also in the context of systematic reviews [42]. Terminology The terminology used to describe a systematic review and meta-analysis has evolved over time. One reason for changing the name from QUOROM to PRISMA was the desire to encompass both systematic reviews and meta-analyses. We have adopted the definitions used by the Cochrane Collaboration [9]. A systematic review is a review of a clearly formulated question that uses systematic and explicit methods to identify, select, and critically appraise relevant research, and to collect and analyze data from the studies that are included in the review. Statistical methods (meta-analysis) may or may not be used to analyze and summarize the results of the included studies. Meta-analysis refers to the use of statistical techniques in a systematic review to integrate the results of included studies. Developing the PRISMA Statement A three-day meeting was held in Ottawa, Canada, in June 2005 with 29 participants, including review authors, methodologists, clinicians, medical editors, and a consumer. The objective of the Ottawa meeting was to revise and expand the QUOROM checklist and flow diagram, as needed. The executive committee completed the following tasks, prior to the meeting: a systematic review of studies examining the quality of reporting of systematic reviews, and a comprehensive literature search to identify methodological and other articles that might inform the meeting, especially in relation to modifying checklist items. An international survey of review authors, consumers, and groups commissioning or using systematic reviews and meta-analyses was completed, including the International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment (INAHTA) and the Guidelines International Network (GIN). The survey aimed to ascertain views of QUOROM, including the merits of the existing checklist items. The results of these activities were presented during the meeting and are summarized on the PRISMA Web site (http://www.prisma-statement.org/). Only items deemed essential were retained or added to the checklist. Some additional items are nevertheless desirable, and review authors should include these, if relevant [10]. For example, it is useful to indicate whether the systematic review is an update [11] of a previous review, and to describe any changes in procedures from those described in the original protocol. Shortly after the meeting a draft of the PRISMA checklist was circulated to the group, including those invited to the meeting but unable to attend. A disposition file was created containing comments and revisions from each respondent, and the checklist was subsequently revised 11 times. The group approved the checklist, flow diagram, and this summary paper. Although no direct evidence was found to support retaining or adding some items, evidence from other domains was believed to be relevant. For example, Item 5 asks authors to provide registration information about the systematic review, including a registration number, if available. Although systematic review registration is not yet widely available [12],[13], the participating journals of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) [14] now require all clinical trials to be registered in an effort to increase transparency and accountability [15]. Those aspects are also likely to benefit systematic reviewers, possibly reducing the risk of an excessive number of reviews addressing the same question [16],[17] and providing greater transparency when updating systematic reviews. The PRISMA Statement The PRISMA Statement consists of a 27-item checklist (Table 1; see also Text S1 for a downloadable Word template for researchers to re-use) and a four-phase flow diagram (Figure 1; see also Figure S1 for a downloadable Word template for researchers to re-use). The aim of the PRISMA Statement is to help authors improve the reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. We have focused on randomized trials, but PRISMA can also be used as a basis for reporting systematic reviews of other types of research, particularly evaluations of interventions. PRISMA may also be useful for critical appraisal of published systematic reviews. However, the PRISMA checklist is not a quality assessment instrument to gauge the quality of a systematic review. 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097.g001 Figure 1 Flow of information through the different phases of a systematic review. 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097.t001 Table 1 Checklist of items to include when reporting a systematic review or meta-analysis. Section/Topic # Checklist Item Reported on Page # TITLE Title 1 Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both. ABSTRACT Structured summary 2 Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number. INTRODUCTION Rationale 3 Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known. Objectives 4 Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS). METHODS Protocol and registration 5 Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number. Eligibility criteria 6 Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale. Information sources 7 Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched. Search 8 Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated. Study selection 9 State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis). Data collection process 10 Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators. Data items 11 List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made. Risk of bias in individual studies 12 Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis. Summary measures 13 State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means). Synthesis of results 14 Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I2) for each meta-analysis. Risk of bias across studies 15 Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies). Additional analyses 16 Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified. RESULTS Study selection 17 Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram. Study characteristics 18 For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations. Risk of bias within studies 19 Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome-level assessment (see Item 12). Results of individual studies 20 For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group and (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot. Synthesis of results 21 Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency. Risk of bias across studies 22 Present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies (see Item 15). Additional analysis 23 Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression [see Item 16]). DISCUSSION Summary of evidence 24 Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., health care providers, users, and policy makers). Limitations 25 Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias). Conclusions 26 Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research. FUNDING Funding 27 Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review. From QUOROM to PRISMA The new PRISMA checklist differs in several respects from the QUOROM checklist, and the substantive specific changes are highlighted in Table 2. Generally, the PRISMA checklist “decouples” several items present in the QUOROM checklist and, where applicable, several checklist items are linked to improve consistency across the systematic review report. 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097.t002 Table 2 Substantive specific changes between the QUOROM checklist and the PRISMA checklist (a tick indicates the presence of the topic in QUOROM or PRISMA). Section/Topic Item QUOROM PRISMA Comment Abstract √ √ QUOROM and PRISMA ask authors to report an abstract. However, PRISMA is not specific about format. Introduction Objective √ This new item (4) addresses the explicit question the review addresses using the PICO reporting system (which describes the participants, interventions, comparisons, and outcome(s) of the systematic review), together with the specification of the type of study design (PICOS); the item is linked to Items 6, 11, and 18 of the checklist. Methods Protocol √ This new item (5) asks authors to report whether the review has a protocol and if so how it can be accessed. Methods Search √ √ Although reporting the search is present in both QUOROM and PRISMA checklists, PRISMA asks authors to provide a full description of at least one electronic search strategy (Item 8). Without such information it is impossible to repeat the authors' search. Methods Assessment of risk of bias in included studies √ √ Renamed from “quality assessment” in QUOROM. This item (12) is linked with reporting this information in the results (Item 19). The new concept of “outcome-level” assessment has been introduced. Methods Assessment of risk of bias across studies √ This new item (15) asks authors to describe any assessments of risk of bias in the review, such as selective reporting within the included studies. This item is linked with reporting this information in the results (Item 22). Discussion √ √ Although both QUOROM and PRISMA checklists address the discussion section, PRISMA devotes three items (24–26) to the discussion. In PRISMA the main types of limitations are explicitly stated and their discussion required. Funding √ This new item (27) asks authors to provide information on any sources of funding for the systematic review. The flow diagram has also been modified. Before including studies and providing reasons for excluding others, the review team must first search the literature. This search results in records. Once these records have been screened and eligibility criteria applied, a smaller number of articles will remain. The number of included articles might be smaller (or larger) than the number of studies, because articles may report on multiple studies and results from a particular study may be published in several articles. To capture this information, the PRISMA flow diagram now requests information on these phases of the review process. Endorsement The PRISMA Statement should replace the QUOROM Statement for those journals that have endorsed QUOROM. We hope that other journals will support PRISMA; they can do so by registering on the PRISMA Web site. To underscore to authors, and others, the importance of transparent reporting of systematic reviews, we encourage supporting journals to reference the PRISMA Statement and include the PRISMA Web address in their Instructions to Authors. We also invite editorial organizations to consider endorsing PRISMA and encourage authors to adhere to its principles. The PRISMA Explanation and Elaboration Paper In addition to the PRISMA Statement, a supporting Explanation and Elaboration document has been produced [18] following the style used for other reporting guidelines [19]–[21]. The process of completing this document included developing a large database of exemplars to highlight how best to report each checklist item, and identifying a comprehensive evidence base to support the inclusion of each checklist item. The Explanation and Elaboration document was completed after several face to face meetings and numerous iterations among several meeting participants, after which it was shared with the whole group for additional revisions and final approval. Finally, the group formed a dissemination subcommittee to help disseminate and implement PRISMA. Discussion The quality of reporting of systematic reviews is still not optimal [22]–[27]. In a recent review of 300 systematic reviews, few authors reported assessing possible publication bias [22], even though there is overwhelming evidence both for its existence [28] and its impact on the results of systematic reviews [29]. Even when the possibility of publication bias is assessed, there is no guarantee that systematic reviewers have assessed or interpreted it appropriately [30]. Although the absence of reporting such an assessment does not necessarily indicate that it was not done, reporting an assessment of possible publication bias is likely to be a marker of the thoroughness of the conduct of the systematic review. Several approaches have been developed to conduct systematic reviews on a broader array of questions. For example, systematic reviews are now conducted to investigate cost-effectiveness [31], diagnostic [32] or prognostic questions [33], genetic associations [34], and policy making [35]. The general concepts and topics covered by PRISMA are all relevant to any systematic review, not just those whose objective is to summarize the benefits and harms of a health care intervention. However, some modifications of the checklist items or flow diagram will be necessary in particular circumstances. For example, assessing the risk of bias is a key concept, but the items used to assess this in a diagnostic review are likely to focus on issues such as the spectrum of patients and the verification of disease status, which differ from reviews of interventions. The flow diagram will also need adjustments when reporting individual patient data meta-analysis [36]. We have developed an explanatory document [18] to increase the usefulness of PRISMA. For each checklist item, this document contains an example of good reporting, a rationale for its inclusion, and supporting evidence, including references, whenever possible. We believe this document will also serve as a useful resource for those teaching systematic review methodology. We encourage journals to include reference to the explanatory document in their Instructions to Authors. Like any evidence-based endeavor, PRISMA is a living document. To this end we invite readers to comment on the revised version, particularly the new checklist and flow diagram, through the PRISMA Web site. We will use such information to inform PRISMA's continued development. Supporting Information Figure S1 Flow of information through the different phases of a systematic review (downloadable template document for researchers to re-use). (0.08 MB DOC) Click here for additional data file. Text S1 Checklist of items to include when reporting a systematic review or meta-analysis (downloadable template document for researchers to re-use). (0.04 MB DOC) Click here for additional data file.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Meta-analysis in clinical trials

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group.

              Because of the pressure for timely, informed decisions in public health and clinical practice and the explosion of information in the scientific literature, research results must be synthesized. Meta-analyses are increasingly used to address this problem, and they often evaluate observational studies. A workshop was held in Atlanta, Ga, in April 1997, to examine the reporting of meta-analyses of observational studies and to make recommendations to aid authors, reviewers, editors, and readers. Twenty-seven participants were selected by a steering committee, based on expertise in clinical practice, trials, statistics, epidemiology, social sciences, and biomedical editing. Deliberations of the workshop were open to other interested scientists. Funding for this activity was provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. We conducted a systematic review of the published literature on the conduct and reporting of meta-analyses in observational studies using MEDLINE, Educational Research Information Center (ERIC), PsycLIT, and the Current Index to Statistics. We also examined reference lists of the 32 studies retrieved and contacted experts in the field. Participants were assigned to small-group discussions on the subjects of bias, searching and abstracting, heterogeneity, study categorization, and statistical methods. From the material presented at the workshop, the authors developed a checklist summarizing recommendations for reporting meta-analyses of observational studies. The checklist and supporting evidence were circulated to all conference attendees and additional experts. All suggestions for revisions were addressed. The proposed checklist contains specifications for reporting of meta-analyses of observational studies in epidemiology, including background, search strategy, methods, results, discussion, and conclusion. Use of the checklist should improve the usefulness of meta-analyses for authors, reviewers, editors, readers, and decision makers. An evaluation plan is suggested and research areas are explored.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                JAMA Netw Open
                JAMA Netw Open
                JAMA Netw Open
                JAMA Network Open
                American Medical Association
                2574-3805
                29 June 2021
                June 2021
                29 June 2021
                : 4
                : 6
                : e2112404
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Radiation Oncology, Penn State Cancer Institute, Hershey, Pennsylvania
                [2 ]Department of Radiation Oncology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York
                [3 ]Department of Public Health Sciences, Division of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Penn State Cancer Institute, Hershey, Pennsylvania
                [4 ]Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
                [5 ]Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
                [6 ]Center for Bioethics and Social Sciences, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
                Author notes
                Article Information
                Accepted for Publication: April 7, 2021.
                Published: June 29, 2021. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.12404
                Open Access: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License. © 2021 Ha GL et al. JAMA Network Open.
                Corresponding Author: Nicholas G. Zaorsky, MD, MS, Department of Radiation Oncology, Penn State Cancer Institute, 500 University Dr, Hershey, PA 17033 ( nicholaszaorsky@ 123456gmail.com ).
                Author Contributions: Dr Zaorsky and Mr Ha had full access to all the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.
                Concept and design: Ha, Lehrer, Holliday, Zaorsky.
                Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: All authors.
                Drafting of the manuscript: Ha, Zaorsky.
                Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: All authors.
                Statistical analysis: Lehrer, Wang.
                Administrative, technical, or material support: Ha, Zaorsky.
                Supervision: Holliday, Zaorsky.
                Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Holliday reported receiving grants from Merck outside the submitted work. Dr Jagsi reported receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health, Komen Foundation, Greenwall Foundation, Doris Duke Foundation, and Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan; receiving personal fees from Genentech, Amgen, Sherinian and Hasso, and Dressman Benziger Lavelle; and receiving stock options for service as an adviser from Equity Quotient outside the submitted work and serving as an uncompensated founding member of TIME’S UP Healthcare and on the American Society of Clinical Oncology Board of Directors. Dr Zaorsky is supported by startup funding from Penn State Cancer Institute and Penn State College of Medicine, grant LRP 1 L30 CA231572-01 from the National Institutes of Health, and grant CSDG-20-013-01-CCE from the American Cancer Society–Tri State CEOs Against Cancer Clinician Scientist Development. Dr aorsky also received remuneration from Springer Nature for his textbook Absolute Clinical Radiation Oncology Review, and received payments from Weatherby Healthcare unrelated to the current work. No other disclosures were reported.
                Funding/Support: This study was funded by the Penn State Cancer Institute.
                Role of the Funder/Sponsor: The funding source had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.
                Article
                zoi210367
                10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.12404
                8243235
                34185071
                18a77324-ac77-49e9-ab6d-c6f3dbeab94b
                Copyright 2021 Ha GL et al. JAMA Network Open.

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License.

                History
                : 23 November 2020
                : 7 April 2021
                Categories
                Research
                Original Investigation
                Online Only
                Medical Journals and Publishing

                Comments

                Comment on this article