Sex/gender reporting and analysis in Campbell and Cochrane systematic reviews: a cross-sectional methods study

Petkovic, Jennifer; Trawin, Jessica; Dewidar, Omar; Yoganathan, Manosila; Tugwell, Peter; Welch, Vivian

doi:10.1186/s13643-018-0778-6

Cited by 33 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 52 publications

(42 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Only one in three studies reported inclusion of sex or gender in their study design. These results reflect parallel trends that have been observed in other clinical specialties such as surgery, radiology, and neurosciences and include prestigious journals and Cochrane reviews . While federal mandates have an important influence in ascertaining the direction of future research by inspiring researchers to reflect on the role of SGBM in their individual research, it does not necessarily translate into research practice.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 71%

Inclusion of Sex and Gender in Emergency Medicine Research—A 2018 Update

Safdar

Ayala

Ali

et al. 2019

Academic Emergency Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: The objectives were to 1) evaluate the inclusion of sex and gender in publications by emergency medicine (EM) researchers following the 2014 federal mandate and an Academic Emergency Medicine consensus conference on sex-and gender-based research and 2) assess trends compared with 2011 status report that showed 29% studies used sex and gender in the study design and 2% reported it as a primary outcome.Methods: Using MEDLINE, the term "emergency" was used to identify all English-language studies of adult humans published between 2014 and 2017 as EM affiliated (i.e., the first, second, or last author belonged to an EM section, division, center, or institution functioning as emergency department). Four trained abstractors reviewed the data using a standardized data abstraction form.Results: The search revealed 6,442 articles using the selected "emergency" terms, and 2,628 original studies coded as EM-affiliated publications were reviewed, 2,340 met inclusion criteria, and 2,336 were analyzed. This compared to 750 articles reviewed in 2011 using similar search strategy. The adjusted inter-rater reliability for data abstraction was 97% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 95.4%-98.6%]. The leading study areas contributing the most articles were cardiovascular (17.5%), administration/crowding (15.8%), infectious diseases (9.2%), trauma/injury (9.2%), emergency medical services (6.1%), and pulmonary (6.1%). Eighty-six percent (n = 1,921) reported the sex/gender composition of the sample and 0.4% (n = 8) reported transgender identity. Thirty-four percent used sex/gender in the study design, with 27% (n = 609) reporting it as a control variable, 24% (n = 543) as an independent variable, and 2% using sex/gender as primary outcome. Studies funded by federal sources were significantly more likely to include sex/gender in the study design than other sources of funding (odds ratio = 1.77; 95% CI = 1.4-2.2).Conclusions: Compared to 2011, we noted an increase in the number of EM scholarship and use of sex and gender in study design, yet the proportion evaluating it as a primary outcome remained unchanged.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 71%

Inclusion of Sex and Gender in Emergency Medicine Research—A 2018 Update

Safdar

Ayala

Ali

et al. 2019

Academic Emergency Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These findings are consistent with results from a study on Campbell and Cochrane systematic reviews [62]. Petkovic et al (2018) found that reporting in systematic reviews is inadequate [62]. None of the studies in our systematic review included gender diverse populations or other gender considerations.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

“…Throughout the studies, authors used "male/female" and "women/men" and the use of "gender" was inaccurate. These findings are consistent with results from a study on Campbell and Cochrane systematic reviews [62]. Petkovic et al (2018) found that reporting in systematic reviews is inadequate [62].…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

Sex- and Gender-Based Analysis in Cannabis Treatment Outcomes: A Systematic Review

Brabete

Greaves

Hemsing

et al. 2020

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is evidence that sex- and gender-related factors are involved in cannabis patterns of use, health effects and biological mechanisms. Women and men report different cannabis use disorder (CUD) symptoms, with women reporting worse withdrawal symptoms than men. The objective of this systematic review was to examine the effectiveness of cannabis pharmacological interventions for women and men and the uptake of sex- and gender-based analysis in the included studies. Two reviewers performed the full-paper screening, and data was extracted by one researcher. The search yielded 6098 unique records—of which, 68 were full-paper screened. Four articles met the eligibility criteria for inclusion. From the randomized clinical studies of pharmacological interventions, few studies report sex-disaggregated outcomes for women and men. Despite emergent evidence showing the influence of sex and gender factors in cannabis research, sex-disaggregated outcomes in pharmacological interventions is lacking. Sex- and gender-based analysis is incipient in the included articles. Future research should explore more comprehensive inclusion of sex- and gender-related aspects in pharmacological treatments for CUD.

show abstract

“…Health systems can make important contributions to this SDG by tracking gender inequalities and addressing underlying structural issues, including gender-based assessments of approaches to budgeting [ 18 ]. While it is increasingly acknowledged that monitoring sex-specific impacts of health interventions is a critical starting point, sex and gender reporting remains inadequate in health research [ 19 , 20 ]. Petkovic et al’s study of recent systematic reviews documented that less than 30% of reviews reported on sex or gender in the results [ 20 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The evidence gap on gendered impacts of performance-based financing among family physicians for chronic disease care: a systematic review reanalysis in contexts of single-payer universal coverage

Gupta

Ayles

2020

Hum Resour Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Although pay-for-performance (P4P) among primary care physicians for enhanced chronic disease management is increasingly common, the evidence base is fragmented in terms of socially equitable impacts in achieving the quadruple aim for healthcare improvement: better population health, reduced healthcare costs, and enhanced patient and provider experiences. This study aimed to assess the literature from a systematic review on how P4P for diabetes services impacts on gender equity in patient outcomes and the physician workforce. Methods A gender-based analysis was performed of studies retrieved through a systematic search of 10 abstract and citation databases plus grey literature sources for P4P impact assessments in multiple languages over the period January 2000 to April 2018, following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The study was restricted to single-payer national health systems to minimize the risk of physicians sorting out of health organizations with a strong performance pay component. Two reviewers scored and synthesized the integration of sex and gender in assessing patient- and provider-oriented outcomes as well as the quality of the evidence. Findings Of the 2218 identified records, 39 studies covering eight P4P interventions in seven countries were included for analysis. Most (79%) of the studies reported having considered sex/gender in the design, but only 28% presented sex-disaggregated patient data in the results of the P4P assessment models, and none (0%) assessed the interaction of patients’ sex with the policy intervention. Few (15%) of the studies controlled for the provider’s sex, and none (0%) discussed impacts of P4P on the work life of providers from a gender perspective (e.g., pay equity). Conclusions There is a dearth of evidence on gender-based outcomes of publicly funded incentivizing physician payment schemes for chronic disease care. As the popularity of P4P to achieve health system goals continues to grow, so does the risk of unintended consequences. There is a critical need for research integrating gender concerns to help inform performance-based health workforce financing policy options in the era of the Sustainable Development Goals.

show abstract

Sex/gender reporting and analysis in Campbell and Cochrane systematic reviews: a cross-sectional methods study

Cited by 33 publications

References 52 publications

Inclusion of Sex and Gender in Emergency Medicine Research—A 2018 Update

Inclusion of Sex and Gender in Emergency Medicine Research—A 2018 Update

Sex- and Gender-Based Analysis in Cannabis Treatment Outcomes: A Systematic Review

The evidence gap on gendered impacts of performance-based financing among family physicians for chronic disease care: a systematic review reanalysis in contexts of single-payer universal coverage

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About