Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Original research
Gender disparities in industry compensation and research payments among neurointerventional surgeons in the USA
  1. Mariam Kyarunts1,
  2. Charlotte E Michaelcheck1,
  3. Hassan Kobeissi1,
  4. David F Kallmes1,
  5. Ronit Agid2,
  6. Waleed Brinjikji1
  1. 1 Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA
  2. 2 Medical Imaging, Toronto Western Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
  1. Correspondence to Hassan Kobeissi, Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA; kobei1h{at}


Background The purpose of this study is to examine the presence of gender disparity represented by industry payments and research funding within the field of interventional neuroradiology.

Methods Payment information was collected using the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Open Payment database for the year 2019. Kruskal-Wallis tests were used to analyze differences in annual compensation based on sex in $US, while controlling for geographic factors, academic rank, and h-index. A sample t-test was performed to look at gender differences in h-indexes.

Results The study cohort was comprised of 893 interventional neuroradiologists, 73 (8.2%) of which were female. Of the $48889.20 in mean annual payments reported in the database, $5847.13 (11.2%) went to female interventional neuroradiologists (P<0.05). The significant difference in compensation between male and female neuroradiologists was evident after controlling for state-level variance and academic position. There was a statistically significant difference in total reimbursement (P<0.001), research (P<0.001), consulting (P<0.04), food and beverage (P<0.02), and compensation for services other than consulting between males and females (P<0.02). A statistically significant difference was found for h-index based on gender (males=16.7, females=10.1; P<0.001).

Conclusions Our findings indicate that in the field of interventional neuroradiology, females receive less research funding and private industry compensation, have lower h-indexes, and are less likely to occupy the highest academic positions. The difference in funding did not differ when accounting for geographic state of practice and academic rank. Future studies should work to identify potential contributory factors of these trends.

  • Intervention
  • Device

Data availability statement

Data are available upon reasonable request.

Statistics from

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.

Data availability statement

Data are available upon reasonable request.

View Full Text


  • Contributors All authors contributed to the drafting and revision of the manuscript. CEM and MK were responsible for collecting the data. DFK, RA, and WB were responsible for supervision of the work. MK is responsible as the overall guarantor of the work.

  • 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 DFK holds equity in Nested Knowledge, Superior Medical Editors, and Conway Medical, Marblehead Medical and Piraeus Medical. He receives grant support from MicroVention, Medtronic, Balt, and Insera Therapeutics; has served on the Data Safety Monitoring Board for Vesalio; and received royalties from Medtronic. WB holds equity in Nested Knowledge, Superior Medical Editors, Piraeus Medical, Sonoris Medical, and MIVI Neurovascular. He receives royalties from Medtronic and Balloon Guide Catheter Technology. He receives consulting fees from Medtronic, Stryker, Imperative Care, Microvention, MIVI Neurovascular, Cerenovus, Asahi, and Balt. He serves in a leadership or fiduciary role for MIVI Neurovascular, Marblehead Medical LLC, Interventional Neuroradiology (Editor in Chief), Piraeus Medical, and WFITN.

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

  • Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.