Advancing Emergency Medicine by Incorporating Sex and Gender: It Benefits Women, It Benefits Men

McGregor, Alyson J.; Greenberg, Marna Rayl; Choo, Esther K.; Safdar, Basmah

doi:10.1016/j.annemergmed.2017.03.014

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“… 4 In acute care medicine, the implementation of sex-sensitive and gender-sensitive research remains an unmet need. 15 A 2011 review of 2336 diverse Emergency Medicine studies found that although 29% of authors considered sex or gender in their study design, only 2% reported their primary outcome by sex or gender. 16 A 2018 update of this study found that although the incorporation of sex and gender in the study design increased over time, the proportion taking sex or gender into consideration when reporting their primary outcome remained unchanged.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sex and gender-based analysis and diversity metric reporting in acute care trials published in high-impact journals: a systematic review

Granton,

Rodrigues,

Raparelli

et al. 2024

BMJ Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveTo characterise sex and gender-based analysis (SGBA) and diversity metric reporting, representation of female/women participants in acute care trials and temporal changes in reporting before and after publication of the 2016 Sex and Gender Equity in Research guideline.DesignSystematic review.Data sourcesWe searched MEDLINE for trials published in five leading medical journals in 2014, 2018 and 2020.Study selectionTrials that enrolled acutely ill adults, compared two or more interventions and reported at least one clinical outcome.Data abstraction and synthesis4 reviewers screened citations and 22 reviewers abstracted data, in duplicate. We compared reporting differences between intensive care unit (ICU) and cardiology trials.ResultsWe included 88 trials (75 (85.2%) ICU and 13 (14.8%) cardiology) (n=111 428; 38 140 (34.2%) females/women). Of 23 (26.1%) trials that reported an SGBA, most used a forest plot (22 (95.7%)), were prespecified (21 (91.3%)) and reported a sex-by-intervention interaction with a significance test (19 (82.6%)). Discordant sex and gender terminology were found between headings and subheadings within baseline characteristics tables (17/32 (53.1%)) and between baseline characteristics tables and SGBA (4/23 (17.4%)). Only 25 acute care trials (28.4%) reported race or ethnicity. Participants were predominantly white (78.8%) and male/men (65.8%). No trial reported gendered-social factors. SGBA reporting and female/women representation did not improve temporally. Compared with ICU trials, cardiology trials reported significantly more SGBA (15/75 (20%) vs 8/13 (61.5%) p=0.005).ConclusionsAcute care trials in leading medical journals infrequently included SGBA, female/women and non-white trial participants, reported race or ethnicity and never reported gender-related factors. Substantial opportunity exists to improve SGBA and diversity metric reporting and recruitment of female/women participants in acute care trials.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42022282565.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%