Is Our Science Representative? A Systematic Review of Racial and Ethnic Diversity in Orthopaedic Clinical Trials from 2000 to 2020

Analysis of the diversity pipeline for the orthopedic trauma surgeon workforce in the United States

INTRODUCTION

There is a lack of research on the state of racial, ethnic, and gender diversity in the emerging orthopedic trauma workforce. The purpose of this study was to analyze the training pathway for diverse candidates in orthopedic trauma as it relates to race, ethnicity, and sex.

METHODS

Self-reported demographic data were compared among allopathic medical students, orthopedic surgery residents, orthopedic trauma fellows, and the general population in the United States (2013-2022). Race categories consisted of White, Asian, Black, and Native American/Alaskan Native (NA/AN), and Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander (NH/PI). Ethnicity categories were Hispanic/Latino or non-Hispanic/Latino. Sex categories were male and female. Representation was calculated at each stage of accredited training. Participation-to-prevalence ratios (PPRs) quantified the equitable representation of demographic groups in the emerging orthopedic trauma workforce relative to the US population. PPR thresholds were used to classify representation as overrepresented (PPR > 1.2), equitable (PPR = 0.8-1.2), and underrepresented (PPR < 0.8).

RESULTS

Relative to medical school and orthopedic surgery residency, fewer female (48.5 % vs 16.7 % vs 18.7 %, P < 0.001), Hispanic (6.1 % vs 4.5 % vs 2.6 %, P < 0.001), Black (6.9 % vs 5.0 % vs 3.1 %, P < 0.001), and Asian (24.0 % vs 14.3 % vs 12.2 %, P < 0.001) trainees existed in orthopedic trauma fellowship training. In contrast, more male (51.5 % vs 83.3 % vs 81.3 %, P < 0.001) and White (62.8 % vs 79.1 % vs 84.0 %, P < 0.001) trainees existed in orthopedic trauma fellowship relative to earlier training stages. There were zero NA/AN or NH/PI trainees in orthopedic trauma (PPR = 0). Relative to the US population, Hispanic (PPR = 0.14), Black (PPR = 0.25), and female (PPR = 0.37) trainees were underrepresented in orthopedic trauma. In contrast, Asian (PPR = 2.04), male (PPR = 1.64), and White (PPR = 1.36) trainees were overrepresented in orthopedic trauma.

CONCLUSION

Women, racial, and ethnic minorities are underrepresented in the emerging orthopedic trauma workforce relative to the US population, and earlier stages of training. Targeted recruitment and guided mentorship of these groups may lead to greater interest, engagement, and diversity in orthopedic trauma.

Reporting of Participant Race and Ethnicity in Cerebrovascular Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) provide information on appropriate management protocols in patients with cerebrovascular diseases. Despite growing evidence of race and ethnicity being independent predictors of outcomes, recent literature has drawn attention to inadequate reporting of these demographic profiles across RCTs. To our knowledge, the adherence to reporting race and/or ethnicity in cerebrovascular RCTs remains undescribed. Our study describes trends in the reporting of race and/or ethnicity across cerebrovascular RCTs.

METHODS

Web of Science was searched to identify the top 100-cited cerebrovascular RCTs. Additional articles were retrieved from guidelines issued by the American Heart Association for the management of ischemic stroke, intracerebral hemorrhage, and aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to assess for factors influencing reporting of race/ethnicity.

RESULTS

Sixty-five percent of cerebrovascular RCTs lacked reporting of participant race and/or ethnicity. Multivariate regression revealed that studies from North America had a 14.74- fold higher odds (95% CI: 4.574-47.519) of reporting race/ethnicity. Impact factor of the journal was associated with 1.007-fold odds of reporting race/ethnicity (95% CI: 1.000-1.013). Reporting of race and/or ethnicity did not increase with time, or vary according to the number of participating centers, median number of study participants, source of funding, or category of RCT. Among RCTs that reported race, Blacks and Asians were underrepresented compared to Whites.

CONCLUSIONS

Sixty-five percent of prominent cerebrovascular RCTs lack adequate reporting of participant race/ethnicity. Reasons for inadequate reporting of these variables remain unclear and warrant additional investigation.

Are orthopedic clinical trials representative? An analysis of race and ethnicity reported in clinical trials between 2007 and 2022 : Running title: representation of clinical trials in orthopedic surgery

INTRODUCTION

Prior studies investigating the racial and ethnic representation of orthopedic trial participants have found low rates of reporting, but these studies are dated due to the passing of the National Institutes of Health Final Rule in 2017 requiring the reporting of racial and ethnic data among clinical trials. Therefore, we evaluated the representativeness of orthopedic clinical trials before and after the Final Rule.

METHODS

A cross-sectional survey of orthopaedic clinical trials registered at ClinicalTrials.gov between October 1, 2007 and May 20, 2023 was conducted. After identifying and screening 23,752 clinical trials, 1564 trials were included in the analysis. Trials started before the implementation of the Final Rule on January 18, 2017 were grouped and compared to trials that began after. Odds ratios (OR) were utilized to identify trial characteristics associated with reporting race/ethnicity data. One-proportion z tests compared the representation of each racial and ethnic category to the 2020 United States Census.

RESULTS

In total, 34% (544 of 1564) of orthopedic clinical trials evaluated reported the race of participants, while 28% (438 of 1564) reported ethnicity. Trials registered after the Final Rule were more likely to report racial (OR: 5.15, 95%CI: 3.72-7.13, p < 0.001) and ethnic (OR: 3.23, 95%CI: 2.41-4.33, p < 0.001) representation of participants. Compared with the distribution of race and ethnicity reported by the United States 2020 Census, orthopedic trials had 16.6% more White participants (95% CI 16.4%, 16.8%; p < 0.001), 3.2% fewer Black participants (95%CI 3.1%, 3.3%; p < 0.001), and 5.7% fewer Hispanic/Latino participants (95%CI 5.2%, 6.2%; p < 0.001). Trials with enrollment sizes over 100 participants were also more likely to report race and ethnicity, with odds increasing with increased sample size.

CONCLUSIONS

The Final Rule marginally improved the reporting of race and ethnicity in orthopedic clinical trials, and underrepresentation of Black or African American, Multiracial, and Hispanic populations persists.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

Are Orthopaedic Clinical Trials Linguistically and Culturally Diverse? A Systematic Review

Purpose

Underrepresentation and misrepresentation of historically underrepresented populations in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) may have implications for the validity of research results and their application for diverse populations. To evaluate the representation of historically linguistically, racially, and ethnically underrepresented participants in orthopaedic randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and to assess the use of translated and culturally adapted patient reported outcome measures (PROMs).

Methods

Separate and comprehensive literature searches of PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase databases were performed to identify RCTs utilizing PROMs between the years 2012 - 2022 among the top five highest 5-year impact factor orthopaedic journals according to the 2021 Journal Citation Reports database. The primary outcomes of interest included reporting of linguistic, racial and ethnic demographic characteristics of trial participants and the utilization of translated PROMs. The methodological quality of each clinical trial was assessed using the Jadad Criteria.

Results

230 RCTs met inclusion criteria. The language of participants was reported in 14% of trials and in 17% of trials when searching both the published text and clinical trial registration information. In addition, race and/or ethnicity was reported in 11% of trials, and the use of translated PROMs was reported in 7% of trials. Among the six multinational studies, none reported the language of the study population nor the use of translated PROMs. Notably, four studies (2%) reported utilizing culturally adapted PROMs. The average Jadad score was 3.07.

Conclusion

Participant language, race, and ethnicity are infrequently reported in orthopaedic clinical trials, potentially limiting the application and interpretation of study results. Similarly, the linguistic and cultural adaptation of PROMs utilized are often not reported, which also limits interpretations of the validity and generalizability of orthopedic study results. Researchers and journals should promote standard reporting of demographic data and methods of PROM adaptation to ensure results are generalizable to diverse patient populations.

Level of Evidence

III.

Addressing the Impact of Race and Ethnicity on Musculoskeletal Spine Care in the United States

➤ Despite being a social construct, race has an impact on outcomes in musculoskeletal spine care.➤ Race is associated with other social determinants of health that may predispose patients to worse outcomes.➤ The musculoskeletal spine literature is limited in its understanding of the causes of race-related outcome trends.➤ Efforts to mitigate race-related disparities in spine care require individual, institutional, and national initiatives.

Trends in publication and levels of social determinants of health reporting in Journal of Clinical and Translational Science from 2017 to 2023

Social determinants of health affect clinical and translational research processes and outcomes but remain underreported in empirical studies. This scoping review examined the rate and types of social determinants of health (SDoH) variables included in the JCTS translational research studies published between 2017 and 2023 and included 129 studies. Most papers (91.7%) reported at least one SDoH variable with age, race and ethnicity, and sex included most often. Future studies to inform the role of SDoH data in translational research and science are recommended, and a draft SDoH data checklist is provided.

Racial and Ethnic Minorities Underrepresented in Pain Management Guidelines for Total Joint Arthroplasty: A Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Total joint arthroplasty aims to improve quality of life and functional outcomes for all patients, primarily by reducing their pain. This goal requires clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) that equitably represent and enroll patients from all racial/ethnic groups. To our knowledge, there has been no formal evaluation of the racial/ethnic composition of the patient population in the studies that informed the leading CPGs on the topic of pain management after arthroplasty surgery.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

Using papers included in the 2021 Anesthesia and Analgesia in Total Joint Arthroplasty Clinical Practice Guidelines and comparing them with US National census data, we asked: (1) What is the representation of racial/ethnic groups in randomized controlled trials compared with their representation in the US national population? (2) Is there a relationship between the reporting of racial/ethnic groups and year of data collection/publication, location of study, funding source, or guideline section?

METHODS

Participant demographic data (study year published, study type, guideline section, year of data collection, study site, study funding, study size, gender, age, and race/ethnicity) were collected from articles cited by this guideline. Studies were included if they were full text, were primary research articles conducted primarily within the United States, and if they reported racial and ethnic characteristics of the participants. The exclusion criteria included duplicate articles, articles that included the same participant population (only the latest dated article was included), and the following article types: systematic reviews, nonsystematic reviews, terminology reports, professional guidelines, expert opinions, population-based studies, surgical trials, retrospective cohort observational studies, prospective cohort observational studies, cost-effectiveness studies, and meta-analyses. Eighty-two percent (223 of 271) of articles met inclusion criteria. Our original literature search yielded 27 papers reporting the race/ethnicity of participants, including 24 US-based studies and three studies conducted in other countries; only US-based studies were utilized as the focus of this study. We defined race/ethnicity reporting as the listing of participants' race or ethnicity in the body, tables, figures, or supplemental data of a study. National census information from 2000 to 2019 was then used to generate a representation quotient (RQ), which compared the representation of racial/ethnic groups within study populations to their respective demographic representation in the national population. An RQ value greater than 1 indicates an overrepresented group and an RQ value less than 1 indicates an underrepresented group, relative to the US population. Primary outcome measures of RQ value versus time of publication for each racial/ethnic group were evaluated with linear regression analysis, and race reporting and manuscript parameters were analyzed with chi-square analyses.

RESULTS

Two US-based studies reported race and ethnicity independently. Among the 24 US-based studies reporting race/ethnicity, the overall RQ was 0.70 for Black participants, 0.09 for Hispanic participants, 0.1 for American Indian/Alaska Natives, 0 for Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islanders, 0.08 for Asian participants, and 1.37 for White participants, meaning White participants were overrepresented by 37%, Black participants were underrepresented by 30%, Hispanic participants were underrepresented by 91%, Asian participants were underrepresented by 92%, American Indian/Alaska Natives were 90% underrepresented, and Native Hawaiian Pacific Islanders were virtually not represented compared with the US national population. On chi-square analysis, there were differences between race/ethnicity reporting among studies with academic, industry, and dual-supported funding sources (χ2 = 7.449; p = 0.02). Differences were also found between race/ethnicity reporting among US-based and non-US-based studies (χ2 = 36.506; p < 0.001), with 93% (25 of 27) of US-based studies reporting race as opposed to only 7% (2 of 27) of non-US-based studies. Finally, there was no relationship between race/ethnicity reporting and the year of data collection or guideline section referenced.

CONCLUSION

The 2021 Anesthesia and Analgesia in Total Joint Arthroplasty Clinical Practice Guidelines provide evidence-based recommendations that reflect the current standards in orthopaedic surgery, but the studies upon which they are based overwhelmingly underenroll and underreport racial/ethnic minorities relative to their proportions in the US population. As these factors impact analgesic administration, their continued neglect may perpetuate inequities in outcomes after TJA.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Our study demonstrates that all non-White racial/ethnic groups were underrepresented relative to their proportion of the US population in the 2021 Anesthesia and Analgesia in Total Joint Arthroplasty Clinical Practice Guidelines, underscoring a weakness in the orthopaedic surgery evidence base and questioning the overall external validity and generalizability of these combined CPGs. An effort should be made to equitably enroll and report outcomes for all racial/ethnic groups in any updated CPGs.

Methodologies to Advance Health Equity and Reduce Health Inequities in Nursing Research

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention affirm that health equity is only achieved when everyone has opportunities to attain full health potential without disadvantages related to social position or socially determined circumstances. To reduce health inequities in nursing research, researchers must increase diversity in study samples and ensure that study participants are representative of all populations in the United States. Identifying effective methods for recruiting underrepresented populations must be a thoughtful and reflective component of every research methodology. To achieve health equity in research studies, nurse researchers and clinicians must carefully plan ways to recruit study participants who represent all populations.

Equitable Integration of Patient-Reported Outcomes Into Clinical Practice-Opportunities, Challenges, and a Roadmap for Implementation

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) provide a standardized assessment from the patient about their own health status. Although originally developed as research tools, PROMs can be used in clinical care to complement objective functional measures (eg, range of motion) and are increasingly integrated to guide treatment decisions and predict outcomes. In some situations, when PROMs are used during clinical care they can improve patient mortality, outcomes, engagement, well-being, and patient-physician communication. Guidance on how PROMs should be communicated with patients continued to be developed. However, PROM use may have unintended consequences, such as when used implemented without accounting for confounding factors (eg, psychological and social health) or in perpetuating healthcare disparities when used imprecisely (eg, lack of linguistic or cultural validation). In this review, we describe the current state of PROM use in orthopaedic surgery, highlight opportunities and challenges of PROM use in clinical care, and provide a roadmap to support orthopaedic surgery practices in incorporating PROMs into routine care to equitably improve patient health.

Underrepresentation of Non-White Participants in the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons Guidelines for Surgical Management of Knee Osteoarthritis

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to examine the racial and ethnic representation in studies included in the 2015 American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons Surgical Management of the Knee Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guideline relative to their representation of the United States (US).

METHODS

The demographic characteristics reported in articles included in the 2015 American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons Surgical Management of the Knee Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guideline were analyzed. The primary outcome of interest was the representation quotient, which is the ratio of the proportion of a racial/ethnic group in the guideline studies relative to their proportion in the US. There were 211 studies included, of which 15 (7%) reported race. There were 35 studies based in the US and 7 of the US-based studies reported race.

RESULTS

No US-based studies reported race and ethnicity separately, no studies reported American Indian/Alaska Native participants and no US-based studies reported Asian participants. The representation quotient of US-based studies was 0.66 for Black participants, 0.33 for Hispanic participants, and 1.30 for White participants, which indicates a relative over-representation of White participants compared to national proportions.

CONCLUSION

This study illustrated that the evidence base for the surgical management of knee osteoarthritis has been constructed from studies which fail to consider race and ethnicity. Of those US-based studies which do report race or ethnicity, study cohorts do not reflect the US population. These results illustrate a disparity in clinical orthopedic surgical evidence and highlight the need for improved research recruitment strategies.

Reporting of Participant Demographics in Clinical Trials Published in General Radiology Journals

OBJECTIVES

The reporting of research participant demographics provides insights into study generalizability. Our study aimed to determine the frequency at which participant age, sex/gender, race/ethnicity, and socioeconomic status (SES) are reported and used for subgroup analyses in radiology randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and their secondary analyses; as well as the study characteristics associated with, and the classification systems used for demographics reporting.

METHODS

RCTs and their secondary analyses published in 8 leading radiology journals between 2013 and 2021 were included. Associations between study characteristics and demographic reporting were tested with the chi-square goodness of fit test for categorical variables, Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test for impact factor, and logistic regression for publication year.

RESULTS

Among 432 included articles, 89.4% (386) reported age, 90.3% (390) sex/gender, 5.6% (24) race/ethnicity, and 3.0% (13) SES. Among articles that reported these demographics and were not specific to a subgroup, results were analyzed by age in 14.2% (55/386), sex/gender in 19.4% (66/340), race/ethnicity in 13.6% (3/22), and SES in 46.2% (6/13). Journal, impact factor, and last author continent were predictors of race/ethnicity and SES reporting. Funding was associated with race/ethnicity reporting. No study reported sex and gender separately, or documented transgender, nonbinary gender spectrum or intersex participants. A single category for race/ethnicity was used in 37.5% (9/24) of studies, consisting of either "White" or "Caucasian."

CONCLUSION

The reporting of participant demographics in radiology trials is variable and not always representative of the population diversity. Editorial guidelines on the reporting and analysis of participant demographics could help standardize practices.

Federally Funded Randomized Controlled Trials Increase Analysis and Reporting of Study Outcomes by Sex, Race, and Ethnicity

Background: We previously examined National Institutes of Health (NIH)-funded randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in 2004, 2009, and 2015 and found low compliance with NIH policies on inclusion, analysis, and reporting results for female and minoritized subgroups, with no improvement over time. We conducted a fourth wave of data collection using RCTs published in 2021, comparing current results with previous years. Materials and Methods: The authors used PubMed to find 657 RCTs published in print in 14 leading US medical journals in 2021. Of those, 93 (14.2%) were eligible for analysis. We reviewed all parts of eligible studies and any published commentary. Fisher's exact statistics compared proportions of studies analyzing or reporting results for subgroups in 2021 compared with RCTs studied in previous waves. Posthoc analysis compared eligible RCTs about the Covid-19 pandemic to eligible RCTs on other topics. Results: Twenty-five of 93 studies (26.9%) analyzed or reported outcomes by race or ethnicity, an increase over previous years (p < 0.01). Among 79 RCTs with participants of both sexes, the median proportion of female participants was 43%. Moreover, 34 (43.0%) reported an outcome by sex, included sex as a covariate in statistical analysis, or reported results by sex, also an increase over previous waves (p < 0.01). Eleven eligible studies (11.8%) were on a SARS-CoV-2 topic; there was no difference between SARS-CoV-2 RCTs and RCTs on other topics. Conclusions: Analysis and reporting by sex, race, and ethnicity for NIH-funded RCTs published in 2021 significantly increased from previous waves, despite no corresponding increase in enrollment.

Racial and Ethnic Distribution in Diabetic Macular Edema Clinical Trials in the United States (2002-2021)

PURPOSE

Diabetic macular edema (DME), the leading cause of vision loss among patients with diabetes mellitus, disproportionately affects Black and Hispanic patients. Currently, non-White racial and ethnic subgroups are frequently underrepresented in clinical trials, limiting the application of results to the most pertinent patient populations. Thus, we aimed to characterize the trajectory of racial reporting as well as changes and disparities in racial and ethnic distribution among participants of DME clinical trials.

DESIGN

This is a cross-sectional retrospective study.

SUBJECTS

Patients enrolled in United States (US)-based clinical trials for DME.

METHODS

We examined the racial and ethnic demographic distribution of participants in clinical trials related to DME across a 20-year period from 2002 to 2021. Clinical trials were screened from ClinicalTrials.gov for DME, US trial location, study completion, and > 50 patient enrollment. Descriptive statistics, proportions, odds ratios (ORs), and chi-square tests were reported and compared with 2021 US Census demographic data and diagnosed patients with diabetes demographic data.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Change in racial reporting and race/ethnicity across 2 decades and comparison of racial/ethnic distribution with 2021 US Census demographics and diagnosed patients with diabetes.

RESULTS

There was an increase in race reporting from January 2002 to December 2011 (8 trials [40%]) versus January 2012 to December 2021 (20 trials [87%]; OR, 10.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.21-45.16; P = 0.0032). Across the 2 decades, the proportion of Asian patients enrolled increased from 2.4% to 8.0% (OR, 3.47; 95% CI, 2.64-4.56; P < 0.0001). Similarly, the proportion of enrolled Hispanic patients increased from 13.4% to 19.5% (OR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.37-1.78; P < 0.0001). Compared with diabetes prevalence, many minority groups are underrepresented in the total enrollment of DME clinical trial patients (Black [z = -18.51, P < 0.001]; Asian [z = -5.11, P < 0.0001]; Hispanic [chi-square = 274.7, df = 1, P < 0.0001]).

CONCLUSIONS

In the past 2 decades, there has been a trend of increased racial reporting and minority patient enrollment in DME clinical trials. However, Black, Asian, and Hispanic patients remain significantly underrepresented among the DME clinical trial patient population based on diabetes prevalence.

FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S)

Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.

Does clinical research account for diversity in deploying digital health technologies?

Digital health technologies (DHTs) should expand access to clinical research to represent the social determinants of health (SDoH) across the population. The frequency of reporting participant SDoH data in clinical publications is low and is not known for studies that utilize DHTs. We evaluated representation of 11 SDoH domains in 126 DHT-enabled clinical research publications and proposed a framework under which these domains could be captured and subsequently reported in future studies. Sex, Race, and Education were most frequently reported (in 94.4%, 27.8%, and 20.6% of publications, respectively). The remaining 8 domains were reported in fewer than 10% of publications. Medical codes were identified that map to each of the proposed SDoH domains and the resulting resource is suggested to highlight that existing infrastructure could be used to capture SDoH data. An opportunity exists to increase reporting on the representation of SDoH among participants to encourage equitable and inclusive research progress through DHT-enabled clinical studies.

Underrecording and underreporting of participant ethnicity in clinical trials is persistent and is a threat to inclusivity and generalizability

OBJECTIVES

People from ethnic minority groups are underserved by randomized trials, and poor representation of these groups reduces generalizability of results. There is no guidance on which ethnicity categories are appropriate for use in trials and thus inconsistency exists. The purpose of this study is to establish, in a large sample of trials, if participant ethnicity is recorded, how it is obtained (categories used), and if its reporting varies from its recording.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We reviewed trial documentation for 407 randomized controlled trials published in the UK National Institute of Health Research library from 2016 to 2021. We extracted data on the recording (if it was recorded and the categories used) and reporting (if the categories remained the same as those obtained, or not) of ethnicity for each trial along with demographics. In the analysis we categorized the manner of recording and reporting of ethnicity in the trials according to UK Census ethnicity categories.

RESULTS

Ethnicity was recorded in 67.3% (n = 274) of trials. The location in the trial report where ethnicity was recorded was available for 42% (n = 116) of trials. The details on how ethnicity was collected (predefined categories or self-defined) was available for 54/274 (20%) of trials and details on the specifics of the categories recorded was available for 44 (16%) trials. Of the 44, 6 of those did not go on to report on ethnicity in the trial report. Of the remaining 38, only 13 reported ethnicity exactly as it had been recorded. Taken as a whole from the 407 trial reports examined 9.3% (38/407) of trials demonstrated exactly how they both recorded, and reported, ethnicity. Authors made reference to whom results were relevant in terms of ethnicity in 80/407 (19.7%).

CONCLUSION

Ethnicity is underrecorded and underreported in clinical trials. This is a threat to the generalizability of the findings and needs to be improved.

Are Patient-Reported Outcome Measures for Distal Radius Fractures Validated for Spanish and Culture? A Systematic Review

PURPOSE

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are used commonly to assess function to direct treatment and evaluate outcomes for patients with distal radius fractures. Most PROMs have been developed and validated in English with minimal report of the demographics of patients studied. The validity of applying these PROMs among Spanish-speaking patients is unknown. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the quality and psychometric properties of Spanish-language adaptations of PROMs for distal radius fractures.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review to identify published studies of adaptations of Spanish-language PROMs evaluating patients with distal radius fractures. We evaluated the methodologic quality of the adaptation and validation using Guidelines for the Process of Cross-Cultural Adaptation of Self-Report Measures, Quality Criteria for Psychometric Properties of Health Status Questionnaire, and the Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments Checklist for Cross-Cultural Validity. The level of evidence was evaluated based upon prior methodology.

RESULTS

Five instruments reported in eight studies were included: the Patient-Rated Wrist Evaluation (PRWE), Disability of Arm Shoulder and Hand, Upper Limb Functional Index, Lawton Instrumental Activities of Daily Living Scale, and Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment. The PRWE was the most frequently included PROM. No study followed all six processes for adaptation or assessed all measurement properties. No study demonstrated the completion of more than eight of the 14 aspects of cross-cultural validity. The PRWE had moderate evidence to support half of the domains of measurement properties evaluating the level of evidence.

CONCLUSIONS

None of the five instruments identified received a good rating on all three checklists. Only the PWRE demonstrated moderate evidence on half of the measurement domains.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Given the lack of strong evidence to support the quality of these instruments, we recommend adaptation and testing of PROMs for this population before use. Currently, PROMs in Spanish-speaking patients should be used with caution so as not to perpetuate health care disparities.

Improving Randomized-Controlled Trials in Foot and Ankle Orthopaedics: The Need to Include Sociodemographic Patient Data

BACKGROUND

The representation of sociodemographic data within randomized-controlled trials (RCT) regarding foot and ankle surgery is undefined. The purpose of this study was to determine the incidence of sociodemographic data being reported in contemporary foot and ankle RCTs.

METHODS

Randomized-controlled trials within the PubMed database from 2016 to 2021 were searched and the full text of 40 articles was reviewed to identify sociodemographic variables reported in the manuscript. Data regarding race, ethnicity, insurance status, income, work status, and education were collected.

RESULTS

Race was reported in the results in 4 studies (10.0%), ethnicity in 1 (2.5%), insurance status in 0 (0%), income in 1 (2.5%), work status in 3 (7.5%) and education in 2 (5.0%). In any section other than the results, race was reported in 6 studies (15.0%), ethnicity in 1 (2.5%), insurance status in 3 (7.5%), income in 6 (15.0%), work status in 6 (15.0%), and education in 3 (7.5%). There was no difference in sociodemographic data by journal (P = .212), year of publication (P = .216), or outcome study (P = .604).

CONCLUSION

The overall rate of sociodemographic data reported in foot and ankle RCTs is low. There was no difference in the reporting of sociodemographic data between journal, year of publication, or outcome study.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level II.

Reporting demographics in randomized control trials in spine surgery - we must do better

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Demographic factors contribute significantly to spine surgery outcomes. Although race and ethnicity are not proxies for disease states, the intersection between these patient characteristics and socioeconomic status significantly impact patient outcomes.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study is to investigate the frequency of demographic reporting and analysis in randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) published in the three highest impact spine journals.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review.

PATIENT SAMPLE

We analyzed 278 randomized control trials published in The Spine Journal, Spine, and Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine between January 2012 - January 2022.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Extracted manuscript characteristics included the frequency of demographic reporting, sample size, and demographic composition of studies.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of RCTs published between January 2012 - January 2022 in the three highest impact factor spine journals in 2021: The Spine Journal, Spine, and Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine. We determined if age, gender, BMI, race, and ethnicity were reported and analyzed for each study. The overall frequency of demographic reporting was assessed, and the reporting trends were analyzed for each individual year and journal. Among studies that did report demographics, the populations were analyzed in comparison to the national population per United States (US) census reports. Studies were evaluated for bias using Cochrane risk-of-bias.

RESULTS

Our search identified 278 RCTs for inclusion. 166 were published in Spine, 65 in The Spine Journal, and 47 in Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine. Only 9.35% (N=26) and 3.9% (N=11) of studies reported race and ethnicity, respectively. Demographic reporting frequency did not vary based on the publishing journal. Reporting of age and BMI increased over time, but reporting of race and ethnicity did not. Among RCTs that reported race, 88% were conducted in the US, and 85.71% of the patients in these US studies were White. White subjects were overly represented compared to the US population (85.71% vs. 61.63%, p<.001), and non-White or Black patients were most underrepresented (2.89% vs. 25.96%, p<.001).

CONCLUSIONS

RCTs published in the three highest impact factor spine journals failed to frequently report patient race or ethnicity. Among studies published in the US, study populations are increasingly represented by non-Hispanic White patients. As we strive to care for an increasingly diverse population and reduce disparities to care, spine surgeons must do a better job reporting these variables to increase the external validity and generalizability of RCTs.

A Systematic Review on Antimicrobial Pharmacokinetic Differences between Asian and Non-Asian Adult Populations

While the relevance of inter-ethnic differences to the pharmacokinetic variabilities of antimicrobials has been reported in studies recruiting healthy subjects, differences in antimicrobial pharmacokinetics between Asian and non-Asian patients with severe pathologic conditions require further investigation. For the purpose of describing the potential differences in antimicrobial pharmacokinetics between Asian and non-Asian populations, a systematic review was performed using six journal databases and six theses/dissertation databases (PROSPERO record CRD42018090054). The pharmacokinetic data of healthy volunteers and non-critically ill and critically ill patients were reviewed. Thirty studies on meropenem, imipenem, doripenem, linezolid, and vancomycin were included in the final descriptive summaries. In studies recruiting hospitalised patients, inconsistent differences in the volume of distribution (V_d) and drug clearance (CL) of the studied antimicrobials between Asian and non-Asian patients were observed. Additionally, factors other than ethnicity, such as demographic (e.g., age) or clinical (e.g., sepsis) factors, were suggested to better characterise these pharmacokinetic differences. Inconsistent differences in pharmacokinetic parameters between Asian and non-Asian subjects/patients may suggest that ethnicity is not an important predictor to characterise interindividual pharmacokinetic differences between meropenem, imipenem, doripenem, linezolid, and vancomycin. Therefore, the dosing regimens of these antimicrobials should be adjusted according to patients' demographic or clinical characteristics that can better describe pharmacokinetic differences.

Racial bias in recruitment to clinical trials on paediatric asthma

Asthma is now the commonest chronic disease of childhood, but not all children with asthma receive equivalent standards of medical care which influences their clinical outcomes. In this paper we sought to determine the proportion of participants in registered clinical trials relating to paediatric or adolescent asthma over the last decade that were from white and non-white backgrounds. We searched the ClinicalTrials.gov database for all completed interventional studies between the dates 1st January 2011 and 1st January 2021 that were on the topic of 'asthma', and included participants below 18 years of age. Of the 500 studies returned, 208 had results available on the ClinicalTrials.gov website. In total, of the 112,327 patients studied, almost 69 % (77,333) of the patients were described as White or Caucasian, and fewer than 13 % (14,189) were described as Black, African, or African-American. Overall, approximately 30 % of study participants - some 34,207 children - were from non-white backgrounds. To redress this imbalance, researchers designing clinical trials must ensure that their study populations are as representative of the target population for the intervention as possible.

Diversity in Orthopaedic Surgery Medical Device Clinical Trials: An Analysis of the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act

INTRODUCTION

Demographic factors contribute markedly to orthopaedic surgery outcomes. However, women and minorities have been historically excluded from clinical trials. The United States passed the Safety and Innovation Act (Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act [FDA-SIA]) in 2012 to increase study diversity and mandate reporting of certain demographics. The purpose of this study was to investigate demographic reporting and analysis among high-risk orthopaedic medical device trials and evaluate the effectiveness of the FDA-SIA in increasing diversity of study enrollment.

METHODS

The premarket approval database was queried for all original submissions approved by the Orthopedic Advisory Committee from January 1, 2003, to July 1, 2022. Study demographics were recorded. Weighted means of race, ethnicity, and sex were compared before and after FDA-SIA implementation with the US population.

RESULTS

We identified 51 orthopaedic trials with unique study data. Most Food and Drug Administration device trials reported age (98.0%) and sex (96.1%), but only 49.0% and 37.3% reported race and ethnicity, respectively. Only 23 studies analyzed sex, six analyzed race, and two analyzed ethnicity. Compared with the US population, participants were overwhelmingly White (91.36% vs. 61.63%, P < 0.001) with a significant underrepresentation of Black (3.65% vs. 12.41%, P = 0.008), Asian (0.86% vs. 4.8%, P = 0.030), and Hispanic participants (3.02% vs. 18.73%, P < 0.001) before 2013. The FDA-SIA increased female patient enrollment (58.99% vs. 47.96%, P = 0.021) but did not increase the enrollment of racial or ethnic minorities.

CONCLUSION

Despite efforts to increase the generalizability of studies within the FDA-SIA, orthopaedic medical devices still fail to enroll diverse populations and provide demographic subgroup analysis. The study populations within these trials do not represent the populations for whom these devices will be indicated in the community. The federal government must play a stronger role in mandating study diversity, enforcing appropriate statistical analysis of the demographic subgroups, and executing measures to ensure compliance.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

I.

Racial Disparities in Outcomes After THA and TKA Are Substantially Mediated by Socioeconomic Disadvantage Both in Black and White Patients

BACKGROUND

Demographic factors have been implicated in THA and TKA outcome disparities. Specifically, patients' racial backgrounds have been reported to influence outcomes after surgery, including length of stay, discharge disposition, and inpatient readmissions. However, in the United States, health-impacting socioeconomic disadvantage is sometimes associated with racial differences in ways that can result in important confounding, thereby raising the question of whether race-associated post-THA/TKA adverse outcomes are an independent function of race or a byproduct of confounding from socioeconomic deprivation, which is potentially addressable. To explore this, we used the Area Deprivation Index (ADI) as a proxy for socioeconomic disadvantage, since it is a socioeconomic parameter that estimates the likely deprivation associated with a patient's home address.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

The goal of this study was to investigate (1) whether race (in this study, Black versus White) was independently associated with adverse outcomes, including prolonged length of stay (LOS > 3 days), nonhome discharge, 90-day readmission, and emergency department (ED) visits while controlling for age, gender, BMI, smoking, Charlson comorbidity index (CCI), and insurance; and (2) whether socioeconomic disadvantage, measured by ADI, substantially mediated any association between race and any of the aforementioned measured outcomes.

METHODS

Between November 2018 and December 2019, 2638 underwent elective primary THA and 4915 patients underwent elective primary TKA for osteoarthritis at one of seven hospitals within a single academic center. Overall, 12% (742 of 5948) of patients were Black and 88% (5206 of 5948) were White. We included patients with complete demographic data, ADI data, and who were of Black or White race; with these criteria, 11% (293 of 2638) were excluded in the THA group, and 27% (1312 of 4915) of patients were excluded in the TKA group. In this retrospective, comparative study, patient follow-up was obtained using a longitudinally maintained database, leaving 89% (2345 of 2638) and 73% (3603 of 4915) for analysis in the THA and TKA groups, respectively. For both THA and TKA, Black patients had higher ADI scores, slightly higher BMIs, and were more likely to be current smokers at baseline. Furthermore, within the TKA cohort there was a higher proportion of Black women compared with White women. Multivariable regression analysis was utilized to assess associations between race and LOS of 3 or more days, nonhome discharge disposition, 90-day inpatient readmission, and 90-day ED admission, while adjusting for age, gender, BMI, smoking, CCI, and insurance. This was followed by a mediation analysis that explored whether the association between race (the independent variable) and measured outcomes (the dependent variables) could be partially or completely attributable to confounding from the ADI (the mediator, in this model). The mediation effect was measured as a percentage of the total effect of race on the outcomes of interest that was mediated by ADI.

RESULTS

In the THA group, after adjusting for age, gender, BMI, smoking, CCI, and insurance, White patients had lower odds of experiencing an LOS of 3 days or more (OR 0.43 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.31 to 0.59]; p < 0.001) and nonhome discharge (OR 0.39 [95% CI 0.27 to 0.56]; p < 0.001). In mediation analysis, ADI partially explained (or mediated) 37% of the association between race and LOS of 3 days or more (-0.043 [95% CI -0.063 to -0.026]; p < 0.001) and 40% of the association between race and nonhome discharge (0.041 [95% CI 0.024 to 0.059]; p < 0.001). However, a smaller direct association between race and both outcomes was observed (LOS 3 days or more: -0.075 [95% CI -0.13 to -0.024]; p = 0.004; nonhome discharge: 0.060 [95% CI 0.016 to 0.11]; p = 0.004). No association was observed between race and 90-day readmission or ED admission in the THA group. In the TKA group, after adjusting for age, gender, BMI, smoking, CCI, and insurance, White patients had lower odds of experiencing an LOS of 3 days or more (OR 0.41 [95% CI 0.32 to 0.54]; p < 0.001), nonhome discharge (OR 0.44 [95% CI 0.33 to 0.60]; p < 0.001), 90-day readmission (OR 0.54 [95% CI 0.39 to 0.77]; p < 0.001), and 90-day ED admission (OR 0.60 [95% CI 0.45 to 0.79]; p < 0.001). In mediation analysis, ADI mediated 19% of the association between race and LOS of 3 days or more (-0.021 [95% CI -0.035 to -0.007]; p = 0.004) and 38% of the association between race and nonhome discharge (0.029 [95% CI -0.016 to 0.040]; p < 0.001), but there was also a direct association between race and these outcomes (LOS 3 days or more: -0.088 [95% CI -0.13 to -0.049]; p < 0.001; nonhome discharge: 0.046 [95% CI 0.014 to 0.078]; p = 0.006). ADI did not mediate the associations observed between race and 90-day readmission and ED admission in the TKA group.

CONCLUSION

Our findings suggest that socioeconomic disadvantage may be implicated in a substantial proportion of the previously assumed race-driven disparity in healthcare utilization parameters after primary total joint arthroplasty. Orthopaedic surgeons should attempt to identify potentially modifiable socioeconomic disadvantage indicators. This serves as a call to action for the orthopaedic community to consider specific interventions to support patients from vulnerable areas or whose incomes are lower, such as supporting applications for nonemergent medical transportation or referring patients to local care coordination agencies. Future studies should seek to identify which specific resources or approaches improve outcomes after TJA in patients with socioeconomic disadvantage.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, therapeutic study.

Few Randomized Controlled Trials in Spine Surgery in the United States Include Sociodemographic Patient Data: A Systematic Review

INTRODUCTION

The importance of sociodemographic factors such as race, education, and income on spine surgery outcomes has been well established, yet the representation of sociodemographic data within randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in spine literature remains undefined in the United States (U.S).

METHODS

Medical literature was reviewed within PubMed for RCTs with "spine" in the title or abstract published within the last 8 years (2014 to 2021) in seven major spine journals. This yielded 128 results, and after application of inclusion criteria (RCTs concerning adult spine pathologies conducted in the U.S), 54 RCTs remained for analysis. Each article's journal of publication, year of publication, and spinal pathology was recorded. Pathologies included cervical degeneration, thoracolumbar degeneration, adult deformity, cervical trauma, and thoracolumbar trauma. Sociodemographic variables collected were race, ethnicity, insurance status, income, work status, and education. The Fisher's exact test was used to compare inclusion of sociodemographic data by journal, year, and spinal pathology.

RESULTS

Sociodemographic data were included in the results and in any section of 57.4% (31/54) of RCTs. RCTs reported work status in 25.9% (14/54) of results and 38.9% (21/54) of RCTs included work status in any section. Income was included in the results and mentioned in any section in 13.0% (7/54) of RCTs. Insurance status was in the results or any section of 9.3% (5/54) and 18.5% (10/54) of RCTs, respectively. There was no association with inclusion of sociodemographic data within the results of RCTs as a factor of journal (P = 0.337), year of publication (P = 0.286), or spinal pathology (P = 0.199).

DISCUSSION

Despite evidence of the importance of sociodemographic factors on the natural history and treatment outcomes of myriad spine pathologies, this study identifies a surprising absence of sociodemographic data within contemporary RCTs in spine surgery. Failure to include sociodemographic factors in RCTs potentially bias the generalizability of outcome data.

Axes of social inequities in COVID-19 clinical trials: A systematic review

Objective

The representativeness of participants is crucial to ensure external validity of clinical trials. We focused on the randomized clinical trials which assessed COVID-19 vaccines to assess the reporting of age, sex, gender identity, race, ethnicity, obesity, sexual orientation, and socioeconomic status in the results (description of the participants' characteristics, loss of follow-up, stratification of efficacy and safety results).

Methods

We searched the following databases for randomized clinical trials published before 1st February 2022: PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Excerpta Medica. We included peer-reviewed articles written in English or Spanish. Four researchers used the Rayyan platform to filter citations, first reading the title and abstract, and then accessing the full text. Articles were excluded if both reviewers agreed, or if a third reviewer decided to discard them.

Results

Sixty three articles were included, which assessed 20 different vaccines, mainly in phase 2 or 3. When describing the participants' characteristics, all the studies reported sex or gender, 73.0% race, ethnicity, 68.9% age groups, and 22.2% obesity. Only one article described the age of participants lost to follow-up. Efficacy results were stratified by age in 61.9%, sex or gender in 26.9%, race and/or, ethnicity in 9.5%, and obesity in 4.8% of the articles. Safety results were stratified by age in 41.0%, and by sex or gender in 7.9% of the analysis. Reporting of gender identity, sexual orientation or socioeconomic status of participants was rare. Parity was reached in 49.2% of the studies, and sex-specific outcomes were mentioned in 22.9% of the analysis, most of the latter were related to females' health.

Conclusions

Axes of social inequity other than age and sex were hardly reported in randomized clinical trials that assessed COVID-19 vaccines. This undermines their representativeness and external validity and sustains health inequities.