Stroke and Myocardial Infarction: A Comparative Systematic Evaluation of Gender-Specific Analysis, Funding and Authorship Patterns in Cardiovascular Research

Abstract

Background: Major gender differences exist in cardiovascular diseases and lead to different outcomes in women and men. However, attention and incorporation of sex-/gender-specific research might vary among disciplines. We therefore conducted a systematic review comparing publication characteristics and trends between stroke and myocardial infarction (MI) with respect to sex- and gender-related aspects. Methods: A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed to identify gender-/sex-related articles published for stroke and MI between 1977 and 2008. A specifically designed text mining program was used, and all literature was rated by two independent investigators. Publications were classified according to type of research performed, publication year, funding, geographical location, and gender of first and last authors. Results: 962 articles were retrieved and limited to 405 (42%) gender-relevant publications; 131 on stroke and 274 on MI. Type of performed research differed, especially in disease management, which received little attention (17%) in stroke, while representing the major focus in MI (40%). In both areas, clinical presentation received little attention (3 and 5%). Although publications progressively increased in both fields, an 8- to 10-year time gap emerged for stroke compared to MI. Last authors in both areas were predominantly men, but female last authorship is increasing more significantly over time in the field of stroke. Research on sex and gender differences in MI and stroke is largely underfunded, particularly by the EU. Conclusions: The data demonstrate how sex-/gender-specific research differs between specialties, most likely due to the diverse interest, funding opportunities and authorship distributions identified.

Analysis of Gender-Based Inequality in Cardiovascular Health: An Umbrella Review

“…Clinical research into differences in symptoms and diagnosis is underrepresented, despite the differing presentations across sexes being well known, and ultimately being widely blamed for the delay in treatment of women having an MI [ 17 ]. This is reflected within this umbrella review with only two of the included papers being focused on presentation.…”

Automation of systematic reviews of biomedical literature: a systematic review of studies indexed in PubMed

“…Nineteen included papers (15.4%) aimed to automate or improve database searches 18,43,51,54,56,61,70,76,78,98,101,104,111,113,115,122,127,136,140 . The rst included paper from 2011 applied text-mining to construct a search syntax for PubMed, using the Apache Lucene platform 43 .…”

“…Nineteen included papers (15.4%) aimed to automate or improve database searches 18,43,51,54,56,61,70,76,78,98,101,104,111,113,115,122,127,136,140 . The rst included paper from 2011 applied text-mining to construct a search syntax for PubMed, using the Apache Lucene platform 43 . Eleven papers used a plethora of text-mining tools to aid search syntax building, such as Anne O'Tate, AntConc, Apache Lucene, BiblioShiny, Carrot2, CitNetExplorer, EndNote, Keyword-Analyzer, Leximancer, Lingo3G, Lingo4G, MeSH on Demand, MetaMap, Microsoft Academic, PubReMiner, Systematic Review Accelerator, TerMine, Text Analyzer, Tm for R, VOSviewer, Voyant, Yale MeSH Analyzer as well as in-house solutions 18,43,51,54,61,63,98,115,122,136,140 .…”

“…The rst included paper from 2011 applied text-mining to construct a search syntax for PubMed, using the Apache Lucene platform 43 . Eleven papers used a plethora of text-mining tools to aid search syntax building, such as Anne O'Tate, AntConc, Apache Lucene, BiblioShiny, Carrot2, CitNetExplorer, EndNote, Keyword-Analyzer, Leximancer, Lingo3G, Lingo4G, MeSH on Demand, MetaMap, Microsoft Academic, PubReMiner, Systematic Review Accelerator, TerMine, Text Analyzer, Tm for R, VOSviewer, Voyant, Yale MeSH Analyzer as well as in-house solutions 18,43,51,54,61,63,98,115,122,136,140 . Two papers introduced curated article collections, such as Cochrane CENTRAL 111 , and the Realtime Data Synthesis and Analysis (REDASA) COVID-19 dataset 127 , which were assembled using various automation techniques.…”

“…From the 15 ASLRs, four (26.7%) reviews automated the search 113 , 43,61,136 , eleven (73.3%) the screening 50,83,89,95,110,113,120,132,146,147 , two (13.3%) the full text selection 71,132 and one (6.7%) the data extraction phase 133 . One study did not report the software 110 , six used open source software 43,61,71,83,113,133 , and eight studies used off-the shelf tools 50,89,95,120,132,136,146,147 . Three studies (20.0%) reported recall with values between 96%-100% 89, 95,132 .…”