BACKGROUND Recent studies suggest that female researchers are less visible on social media. The objective of this observational work was to compare the use of professional social networks between male and female anaesthesia researchers. METHODS Among four anaesthesia journals, we analysed the first/last authors (FA/LA) of the most frequently cited articles in 2016-2017 and the authors who published more than one article per year between 2013 and 2018 (prolific authors). We compared the use of the professional social networks Twitter, LinkedIn, and ResearchGate by the selected authors and analysed the proportion of women in FA and LA position. The variables are presented as median (inter-quartile range). RESULTS The analysis included 260 FA, 232 LA, and 297 prolific authors. Despite similar declared skills and number of citations, women had lower scientific reputation scores on ResearchGate (RG score: 32.0 [24.4-41.1] vs 20.3 [15.1-29.2]; P<0.0001 in the FA group; 39.3 [34.3-43.4] vs 35.7 [30.3-39.5], P<0.01 in the LA group; and 41.5 [35.6-45.7] vs 36.8 [28.1-42.7], P<0.01 in the prolific group). In all groups, women were significantly less followed on ResearchGate than men. In the three groups, the Twitter (22.7%, 25.0%, and 23.6%, respectively) and LinkedIn (59.2%, 56.5%, and 62.3%, respectively) usage rate were similar with no difference between men and women in each group. Of the 260 articles included, 94 (36.2%) manuscripts had female FA, whereas 41 (15.8%) had female LA. CONCLUSION In anaesthesia, the visibility of female researchers on the social network dedicated to scientific research is lower than that of male researchers.

中文翻译：

---

麻醉研究人员在专业社交媒体使用中的性别差异。

背景技术最近的研究表明，女性研究人员在社交媒体上的知名度较低。这项观察性工作的目的是比较男性和女性麻醉研究人员之间专业社交网络的使用情况。方法在四篇麻醉学期刊中，我们分析了2016-2017年间最常被引用的文章的第一/最后作者（FA / LA），以及在2013年至2018年期间每年发表多篇文章的作者（多产的作者）。我们比较了选定作者对专业社交网络Twitter，LinkedIn和ResearchGate的使用情况，并分析了在FA和LA职位中女性的比例。变量以中位数（四分位间距）表示。结果分析包括260名FA，232名LA和297名多产作者。尽管声明的技巧和引用次数相似，女性在ResearchGate上的科学声誉得分较低（RG得分：32.0 [24.4-41.1] vs 20.3 [15.1-29.2]； FA组中P <0.0001； 39.3 [34.3-43.4] vs 35.7 [30.3-39.5]，P < LA组为0.01； 41.5 [35.6-45.7] vs 36.8 [28.1-42.7]，多产组P <0.01）。在所有组中，ResearchGate追踪的女性人数明显少于男性。在这三组中，Twitter（分别为22.7％，25.0％和23.6％）和LinkedIn（分别为59.2％，56.5％和62.3％）的使用率相似，每组男女之间没有差异。在包括的260篇文章中，有94篇（36.2％）的手稿有女性FA，而有41篇（15.8％）的手稿具有女性LA。结论在麻醉中，女性研究人员在致力于科学研究的社交网络上的知名度低于男性研究人员。