Dermatology: Practical and Conceptual


Research Letter | Dermatol Pract Concept. 2025;15(4):5653 1

Trends in Gender Representation at US 
Dermatology Grand Rounds (2000-2025):  

A Cross-Sectional Study
Maggie H. Zhou1, Wei Li2, Faith Chukwu3, Amit Singal4,5, Shari R. Lipner5 

1 Columbia University Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, New York

2 Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, New York

3 Jacobs School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, New York

4 Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, Newark, New Jersey

5 Department of Dermatology, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, New York

Key words: Grand rounds, Dermatology, Gender representation, Women speakers

Citation: Zhou MH, Li W, Chukwu F, Singal A, Lipner SR. Trends in Gender Representation at US Dermatology Grand Rounds 
(2000-2025): A Cross-Sectional Study. Dermatol Pract Concept. 2025;15(4):5653. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5826/dpc.1504a5653

Accepted: April 8, 2025; Published: October 2025

Copyright: ©2025 Zhou et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-
NonCommercial License (BY-NC-4.0), https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/, which permits unrestricted noncommercial use, 
distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original authors and source are credited.

Funding: None.

Competing Interests: None.

Authorship: All authors have contributed significantly to this publication.

Corresponding Author: Shari R. Lipner, MD, PhD, Department of Dermatology, Weill Cornell Medicine, 1305 York Ave 9th Floor, 
New York, NY 10021. ORCID: 0000-0001-5913-9304. E-mail: shl9032@med.cornell.edu.

Introduction

Over the last two decades, female dermatology trainees have 

outnumbered male trainees. However, women are still un-

derrepresented in academic leadership positions [1]. Grand 

rounds (GRs) are forums for showcasing research and clini-

cal insights, playing an important role in career advancement. 

Gender disparities among GR speakers have been reported 

in cardiology and orthopedic surgery [2,3]. Therefore, we 

sought to evaluate gender representation of dermatology GR 

speakers in the United States to determine alignment with 

current dermatologist gender distribution.

Findings

Dermatology residency programs listed in the American 

Medical Association’s FRIEDA directory were reviewed 

for publicly available GR records 1/2000-2/2025. Speaker 

demographics and lecture topics were collected from pro-

gram websites. Publication number was determined by 

PubMed search prior to lecture date. Comparisons between 

speaker genders were performed using Chi-square or Fisher’s 

exact test.

Overall, 1380 lectures were included in our analy-

sis, with 826 (59.9%) delivered by male speakers and 

554 (40.1%) by female speakers. The proportion of fe-

male speakers increased from 33.2% to 58.5% between 

2016–2020 and 2021–2025, respectively (P<0.001). Male 

vs. female speakers more often held senior academic po-

sitions, including Chair (20.3% vs. 3.8%) or Professor  

(34.7% vs. 28.3%) (both P<0.001) and had greater pub-

lication numbers (59.3% vs. 37.7% above median, 

P<0.001). There was a greater proportion of female vs. male 

speakers in the West (25.8% vs. 17.9%) and Northeast  

(43.1% vs. 39.2%) but lower in the Southwest (9.8% vs. 

21.7%) (all P<0.001) (Table 1).



2 Research Letter | Dermatol Pract Concept. 2025;15(4):5653

Table 1. Speaker Characteristics for Male and Female Speakers.
Characteristic Male Speakers Female Speakers P Value

No. of lectures
Speaker academic rank
• Assistant professor
• Associate professor
• Professor
• Chair
• Other
Speaker field
• General dermatology
• Pediatric dermatology
• Surgical dermatology
• Dermatopathology
• Medicine
• Pediatrics
• Other
Speaker publications
• < total median
• ≥ total median
Speaker region
• Northeast
• Southwest
• West
• Southeast
• Midwest
• International
Lecture topics
• Medical dermatology
• Oncodermatology
• Hail/nail disorders
• Dermatopathology
• Pediatric dermatology
• Social
• Patient cases
• Other
Lecture year
• 2000-2005
• 2006-2010
• 2011-2015
• 2016-2020
• 2021-2025

826 (59.9%)
 

193 (23.4%)
112 (13.6%)
287 (34.7%)
168 (20.3%)

66 (8.0%)
 

647 (78.3%)
17 (2.1%)
42 (5.1%)
20 (2.4%)
40 (4.8%)
4 (0.5%)

56 (6.8%)
 

336 (40.7%)
490 (59.3%)

 
324 (39.2%)
179 (21.7%)
148 (17.9%)
103 (12.5%)

64 (7.8%)
8 (1.0%)

 
159 (19.2%)

76 (9.2%)
9 (1.1%)

121 (14.6%)
10 (1.2%)

175 (21.2%)
39 (4.7%)

237 (28.7%)
 

2 (0.2%)
6 (0.7%)

67 (8.1%)
364 (44.1%)
387 (46.9%)

554 (40.1%)
     

182 (32.9%)
144 (26.0%)
157 (28.3%)

21 (3.8%)
50 (9.0%)

 
388 (70.0%)

41 (7.4%)
40 (7.2%)
13 (2.4%)
29 (5.2%)
4 (0.7%)

39 (7.0%)

345 (62.4%)
209 (37.7%)

 
239 (43.1%)

54 (9.8%)
143 (25.8%)
64 (11.6%)
49 (8.8%)
5 (0.9%)

 
100 (18.1%)

53 (9.6%)
24 (4.3%)

64 (11.6%)
23 (4.2%)

85 (15.3%)
11 (2.0%)

194 (35.0%)
 

0 (0.0%)
2 (0.4%)

44 (7.9%)
184 (33.2%)
324 (58.5%)

<0.001

<0.001

<0.001

<0.001

<0.001

<0.001

Female vs. male speakers more often lectured on pedi-

atric dermatology (4.2% vs. 1.2%) and less often on qual-

ity improvement, innovation, and health systems (6.5% vs. 

14.8%) (all P<0.001) (Figure 1). A greater proportion of fe-

male vs. male speakers were pediatric dermatologists (7.4% 

vs. 2.1%, P<0.001) (Table 1).

We showed an increase in representation of female der-

matology GR speakers over the study period, with female 

vs. male speakers having lower academic rank and fewer 

publications. Similarly, in a cross-sectional study of 3806 

cardiology GRs, female vs. male speakers less often held 

senior academic positions (37.9% vs. 45.3%, P<0.001) [3]. 

Furthermore, a review of dermatology journals reported that 

female editors comprised only 22% of editorial board posi-

tions [4].

We also identified a greater proportion of female vs. 

male speakers from the West and Northeast. Notably, a 

cross-sectional study including 11,911 dermatologists re-

ported a tendency for female dermatologists to cluster  

in counties with more equal female to male earning ratios 

(r=+0.11, P<0.001), which may partially explain our find-

ings [5]. In addition, a greater proportion of female vs. male 

speakers were pediatric dermatologists, and females spoke 

more frequently on pediatric dermatology, consistent with 



Research Letter | Dermatol Pract Concept. 2025;15(4):5653 3

demographics that most pediatric dermatologists are female 

(76.8% in 2021) [6].

Limitations include incomplete access to public GR re-

cords and incomplete lecture topic data. Gender was deter-

mined by name and excluded nonbinary gender identities. 

We could not account for declined speaker invitations.

Conclusion

Gender diversity in GR speakers has improved over time, 

though there are persistent disparities by academic rank. As 

the number of female dermatology trainees increases, contin-

ued efforts are needed to increase speaking opportunities for 

women to advance in academic medicine.

References

1. Stewart C, Lipner SR. Gender and race trends in academic rank 

of dermatologists at top U.S. institutions: A cross-sectional study. 

Int J Womens Dermatol. 2020;6(4):283-285. Published 2020 

Apr 30. DOI:10.1016/j.ijwd.2020.04.010. PMID: 33015287; 

PMCID: PMC7522810.

2. Snow M, McDaniel C, Bronheim RS, LaPorte D. Representation 

of women and underrepresented minorities among grand rounds 

speakers in orthopaedic surgery. Surg Pract Sci. 2022;11:100148. 

Published 2022 Nov 24. DOI:10.1016/j.sipas.2022.100148. 

PMID: 39845157; PMCID: PMC11749417.

3. DeFilippis EM, Muppala S, Kaur G, et al. Representation of 

Women Among Cardiology Grand Rounds Speakers in the 

United States. JAMA Cardiol. Published online December 23, 

2024. DOI:10.1001/jamacardio.2024.4255. PMID: 39714874; 

PMCID: PMC11904703.

4. Lobl M, Grinnell M, Higgins S, Yost K, Grimes P, Wysong A. 

Representation of women as editors in dermatology journals: 

A comprehensive review. Int J Womens Dermatol. 2019;6(1): 

20-24. Published 2019 Sep 12. DOI:10.1016/j.ijwd.2019.09.002. 

PMID: 32025556; PMCID: PMC6997825.

5. Ashrafzadeh S, Peters GA, Buzney EA, Lee H, Asgari MM. 

Gender differences in dermatologist practice locations in the 

United States: A cross-sectional analysis of current gender gaps. 

Int J Womens Dermatol. 2021;7(4):435-440. Published 2021 

May 3. DOI:10.1016/j.ijwd.2021.04.003. PMID: 34621956; 

PMCID: PMC8484981.

6. Sinha S, Lin G, Zubkov M, Wu R, Feng H. Geographic distribu-

tion and characteristics of the pediatric dermatology workforce 

in the United States. Pediatr Dermatol. 2021;38(6):1523-1528. 

DOI:10.1111/pde.14824. PMID: 34647352.

Figure 1. Dermatology Grand Rounds Stratified by Lecture Topic and Speaker Gender.