Consideration of sex and gender in Cochrane reviews of interventions for preventing healthcare-associated infections: a methodology study

Risk and outcomes of healthcare-associated infections in three hospitals in Bobo Dioulasso, Burkina Faso, 2022: A longitudinal study

BACKGROUND

Healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) are one of the most common adverse events in healthcare and represent a major public health problem. The present study was conducted to analyze the incidence, risk factors, and outcomes of HAIs through active surveillance in three hospitals in the city of Bobo Dioulasso, Burkina Faso.

METHODS

A prospective, longitudinal, multicenter study was conducted from May 1 to November 30, 2022, in two district hospitals (Do and Dafra) and the Sourô Sanou Teaching Hospital (CHUSS), Burkina Faso. Consenting patients hospitalized for reasons other than infection, cancer, immunosuppression in the postoperative care ward of Do or of Dafra district hospitals, intensive care unit (ICU)/CHUSS, neonatal ward/CHUSS, and gynecology and obstetrics postoperative care ward/CHUSS during a 2-month inclusion period in district hospitals and 4 months for CHUSS wards. For this study, we used the operational definitions of the French Technical Committee for Nosocomial Infections and Healthcare-associated Infections, with slight modifications. Logistic regression was used to analyze risk factors of HAIs.

RESULTS

Of the 664 patients enrolled, 166 experienced an HAI, with a cumulative incidence rate of 25% (95%CI: 21.7%-28.3%) or an incidence density rate of 36.7 per 1000 patient-days (95% CI: 31.7-42.9). Surgical site infections (SSI) (44%), followed by neonatal infections (42%) were the most common HAIs. Enterobacterales represented 60% of the bacteria identified in HAIs, and 38.9% of them were extended spectrum β-lactamase (ESBL) producers. Factors associated with HAIs were admission in the neonatal ward (aOR = 6.6; 95%CI:1.1-40.2), ICU (aOR = 3.3; 95%CI:1.3-8.5), previous hospital stay longer than two days (aOR = 2.0; 95%CI:1.2-3.3), or male sex (aOR = 1.8; 95%CI:1.1-3.0). In addition, HAIs were associated with longer follow-up, hospitalization, and mortality (18.1%; 95% 95%CI:12.1-24.4). Deaths were only recorded in the ICU and neonatal ward, with case fatality rates of 45.4% (95% 95%CI: 27.5-63.4) and 21.4% (95% 95%CI: 11.6-31.3), respectively, p = 0.019.

CONCLUSIONS

The incidence of HAIs was relatively high in the three hospitals in Bobo Dioulasso, Burkina Faso. It is essential to implement rigorous protocols for patient management, to reduce the incidence of HAIs and the spread of resistant pathogens in general and Enterobacterales in particular.

Systematic Review of Gender and Sex Terminology Use in Arthroplasty Research: There Is Room for Improvement

BACKGROUND

There is increasing appreciation of the distinction between gender and sex as well as the importance of accurately reporting these constructs. Given recent attention regarding transgender and gender nonconforming (TGNC) and intersex identities, it is more necessary than ever to understand how to describe these identities in research. This study sought to investigate the use of gender- and sex-based terminology in arthroplasty research.

METHODS

The 5 leading orthopaedic journals publishing arthroplasty research were reviewed to identify the first twenty primary clinical research articles on an arthroplasty topic published after January 1, 2022. Use of gender- or sex-based terminology, whether use was discriminate, and whether stratification or adjustment based on gender or sex was performed, were recorded.

RESULTS

There were 98 of 100 articles that measured a construct of gender or sex. Of these, 15 articles used gender-based terminology, 45 used sex-based terminology, and 38 used a combination of gender- and sex-based terminology. Of the 38 articles using a combination of terminology, none did so discriminately. All articles presented gender and sex as binary variables, and 2 attempted to explicitly define how gender or sex were defined. Of the 98 articles, 31 used these variables for statistical adjustments, though only 6 reported stratified results.

CONCLUSIONS

Arthroplasty articles infrequently describe how gender or sex was measured, and frequently use this terminology interchangeably. Additionally, these articles rarely offer more than 2 options for capturing variation in sex and gender. Future research should be more precise in the treatment of these variables to improve the quality of results and ensure findings are patient-centered and inclusive.

Consideration of Sex, Gender, or Age on Outcomes of Digital Technologies for Treatment and Monitoring of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: Overview of Systematic Reviews

BACKGROUND

Several systematic reviews have addressed digital technology use for treatment and monitoring of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to assess if systematic reviews considered the effects of sex, gender, or age on the outcomes of digital technologies for treatment and monitoring of COPD through an overview of such systematic reviews. The objectives of this overview were to (1) describe the definitions of sex or gender used in reviews; (2) determine whether the consideration of sex, gender, or age was planned in reviews; (3) determine whether sex, gender, or age was reported in review results; (4) determine whether sex, gender, or age was incorporated in implications for clinical practice in reviews; and (5) create an evidence map for development of individualized clinical recommendations for COPD based on sex, gender, or age diversity.

METHODS

MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, Epistemonikos, Web of Science, and the bibliographies of the included systematic reviews were searched to June 2022. Inclusion was based on the PICOS framework: (1) population (COPD), (2) intervention (any digital technology), (3) comparison (any), (4) outcome (any), and (5) study type (systematic review). Studies were independently selected by 2 authors based on title and abstract and full-text screening. Data were extracted by 1 author and checked by another author. Data items included systematic review characteristics; PICOS criteria; and variables related to sex, gender, or age. Systematic reviews were appraised using A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews, version 2 (AMSTAR 2). Data were synthesized using descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

Of 1439 records, 30 systematic reviews published between 2010 and 2022 were included in this overview. The confidence in the results of 25 of the 30 (83%) reviews was critically low according to AMSTAR 2. The reviews focused on user outcomes that potentially depend on sex, gender, or age, such as efficacy or effectiveness (25/30, 83%) and acceptance, satisfaction, or adherence (3/30, 10%) to digital technologies for COPD. Reviews reported sex or gender (19/30 systematic reviews) or age (25/30 systematic reviews) among primary study characteristics. However, only 1 of 30 reviews included age in a subgroup analysis, and 3 of 30 reviews identified the effects of sex, gender, or age as evidence gaps.

CONCLUSIONS

This overview shows that the effects of sex, gender, or age were rarely considered in 30 systematic reviews of digital technologies for COPD treatment and monitoring. Furthermore, systematic reviews did not incorporate sex, gender, nor age in their implications for clinical practice. We recommend that future systematic reviews should (1) evaluate the effects of sex, gender, or age on the outcomes of digital technologies for treatment and monitoring of COPD and (2) better adhere to reporting guidelines to improve the confidence in review results.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42022322924; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=322924.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

RR2-10.2196/40538.

Total delay and associated factors among tuberculosis patients in Jimma Zone, Southwest Ethiopia

BACKGROUND

Delays in diagnosis and treatment of tuberculosis (TB) increases severity of illness and continued transmission of TB in the community. Understanding the magnitude and factors associated with total delay is imperative to expedite case detection and treatment of TB. The aim of this study was to determine the length and analyze factors associated with total delay.

METHODS

Analytic cross-sectional study was conducted in Jimma Zone, Southwest Ethiopia. All newly diagnosed TB patients > 15 years of age were included from randomly selected eight districts and one town in the study area. A structured questionnaire was applied to collect socio-demographic and clinical data. The median total delay was used to dichotomize the sample into delayed and non-delayed patient categories. Logistic regression analysis was used to analyse the association between independent and outcome variables. A p-value < 0.05 were considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

A total of 1,161 patients were included in this study. The median total delay was 35 days. Patients who had swelling or wound in the neck region were more likely to be delayed than their counterpart [adjusted odds ratio (AOR) = 3.02, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.62, 5.62]. Women were more likely to experience longer total delay (AOR = 1.46, 95% CI:1.00, 2.14) compared to men. Patients who had poor knowledge of TB were more likely to be delayed compared to those who had good knowledge (AOR = 3.92, 95% CI: 2.65, 5.80).

CONCLUSION

The present study showed long total delay in diagnosis and treatment of TB. Targeted interventions that enhance TB knowledge and practice, expedite early suspect identification, referral and management of all forms of TB is imperative to reduce total delay in diagnosis and treatment of TB.

Lack of sex-related analysis and reporting in Cochrane Reviews: a cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

Sex-specific analysis and reporting may allow a better understanding of intervention effects and can support the decision-making process. Well-conducted systematic reviews (SRs), like those carried out by the Cochrane Collaboration, provide clinical responses transparently and stress gaps of knowledge. This study aimed to describe the extent to which sex is analysed and reported in a cross-section of Cochrane SRs of interventions, and assess the association with the gender of main authorships.

METHODS

We searched SRs published during 2018 within the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. An investigator appraised the sex-related analysis and reporting across sections of SRs and collected data on gender and country of affiliation of the review first and last authors, and a second checked for accuracy. We conducted descriptive statistics and bivariate logistic regression to explore the association between the gender of the authors and sex-related analysis and reporting.

RESULTS

Six hundred and ten Cochrane SRs were identified. After removing those that met no eligibility criteria, 516 reviews of interventions were included. Fifty-six reviews included sex-related reporting in the abstract, 90 considered sex in their design, 380 provided sex-disaggregated descriptive data, 142 reported main outcomes or performed subgroup analyses by sex, and 76 discussed the potential impact of sex or the lack of such on the interpretations of findings. Women represented 53.1 and 42.2% of first and last authorships, respectively. Women authors (in first and last position) had a higher possibility to report sex in at least one of the review sections (OR 2.05; CI 95% 1.12-3.75, P=0.020) than having none.

CONCLUSIONS

Sex consideration amongst Cochrane SRs was frequently missing. Structured guidance to sex-related analysis and reporting is needed to enhance the external validity of findings. Likewise, including gender diversity within the research workforce and relevant authorship positions may foster equity in the evidence generated.

Lack of attention to sex and gender in periodontitis-related randomized clinical trials: A meta-research study

AIM

This meta-research study aimed to investigate the level of compliance with the Sex and Gender Equity in Research (SAGER) Guidelines for the inclusion, analysis, and reporting of sex/gender, in periodontitis-related randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Following the inclusion of RCTs related to the treatment of periodontitis published between 2018 and 2019, we applied the SAGER checklist to assess the adherence to sex/gender reporting guidelines. We used non-parametric descriptive statistics and correlation models to test the association of the dependent outcome with other variables.

RESULTS

One hundred and one articles were included in the analysis. The female enrolment ranged between 30% and 94%. Twenty-six studies enrolled less than 50% of female participants. The overall SAGER score (OSS) of item fulfilment ranged between 0 and 7 items with an average of 1.9 items signifying poor guideline adherence to the SAGER guidelines. These findings were not associated with the corresponding author gender (p = .623), publication year (p = .947), and funding source (p = .133). However, a significant but negative correlation with journal impact factor (r = -0.253, p = .026) was observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Sex and gender were frequently disregarded in clinical trial reporting. This oversight might limit the understanding of sex/gender differences in periodontitis-related clinical trials.

The Influence of Sex, Gender, or Age on Outcomes of Digital Technologies for Treatment and Monitoring of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: Protocol for an Overview of Systematic Reviews

BACKGROUND

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a common chronic disease that can be treated and monitored with various digital technologies. Digital technologies offer unique opportunities for treating and monitoring people with chronic diseases, but little is known about whether the outcomes of such technologies depend on sex, gender, or age in people with COPD.

OBJECTIVE

The general objective of this study is to assess the possible influence of sex, gender, or age on outcomes of digital technologies for treatment and monitoring of COPD through an overview of systematic reviews.

METHODS

The study is planned as an overview of systematic reviews. Study reporting is based on the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) 2020 guidelines because guidelines for overviews are not available as of this writing. The information sources for the overview will include 4 bibliographic databases (MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Epistemonikos, and Web of Science) as well as the bibliographies of the included systematic reviews. The electronic search strategy will be developed and conducted in collaboration with an experienced database specialist. The search results will be presented in accordance with the PRISMA 2020 guidelines. The eligibility of studies is based on the population, intervention, comparison, outcomes, and study design (PICOS) criteria: (1) people with COPD (population), (2) digital technology intervention for treatment or monitoring (intervention), (3) any control group or no control group (comparison), (4) any outcome, and (5) systematic review of randomized controlled trials or non-randomized controlled trials with or without a meta-analysis (study design). Critical appraisal of the included systematic reviews will be performed using A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews, version 2 (AMSTAR 2). Data will be extracted using a standardized data extraction sheet.

RESULTS

The literature search is scheduled for June 2022. We expect to select the relevant systematic reviews, code the data, and appraise the systematic reviews by December 2022.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a growing recognition that the influence of sex, gender, or age should be considered in research design and outcome reporting in the context of health care interventions. Our overview will identify systematic reviews of various digital technologies for treatment or monitoring of COPD. The most interesting aspect of the overview will be to investigate if any systematic reviews considered the influence of sex, gender, or age on the outcomes of such digital technologies in COPD. Evidence from the overview could be used to guide more individualized (sex, gender, or age-based) recommendations for the use of digital technologies among people with COPD.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42022322924; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=322924.

How effects on health equity are assessed in systematic reviews of interventions

BACKGROUND

Enhancing health equity is endorsed in the Sustainable Development Goals. The failure of systematic reviews to consider potential differences in effects across equity factors is cited by decision-makers as a limitation to their ability to inform policy and program decisions.  OBJECTIVES: To explore what methods systematic reviewers use to consider health equity in systematic reviews of effectiveness.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases up to 26 February 2021: MEDLINE, PsycINFO, the Cochrane Methodology Register, CINAHL, Education Resources Information Center, Education Abstracts, Criminal Justice Abstracts, Hein Index to Foreign Legal Periodicals, PAIS International, Social Services Abstracts, Sociological Abstracts, Digital Dissertations and the Health Technology Assessment Database. We searched SCOPUS to identify articles that cited any of the included studies on 10 June 10 2021. We contacted authors and searched the reference lists of included studies to identify additional potentially relevant studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included empirical studies of cohorts of systematic reviews that assessed methods for measuring effects on health inequalities. We define health inequalities as unfair and avoidable differences across socially stratifying factors that limit opportunities for health. We operationalised this by assessing studies which evaluated differences in health across any component of the PROGRESS-Plus acronym, which stands for Place of residence, Race/ethnicity/culture/language, Occupation, Gender or sex, Religion, Education, Socioeconomic status, Social capital. "Plus" stands for other factors associated with discrimination, exclusion, marginalisation or vulnerability such as personal characteristics (e.g. age, disability), relationships that limit opportunities for health (e.g. children in a household with parents who smoke) or environmental situations which provide limited control of opportunities for health (e.g. school food environment).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data using a pre-tested form. Risk of bias was appraised for included studies according to the potential for bias in selection and detection of systematic reviews.  MAIN RESULTS: In total, 48,814 studies were identified and the titles and abstracts were screened in duplicate. In this updated review, we identified an additional 124 methodological studies published in the 10 years since the first version of this review, which included 34 studies. Thus, 158 methodological studies met our criteria for inclusion. The methods used by these studies focused on evidence relevant to populations experiencing health inequity (108 out of 158 studies), assess subgroup analysis across PROGRESS-Plus (26 out of 158 studies), assess analysis of a gradient in effect across PROGRESS-Plus (2 out of 158 studies) or use a combination of subgroup analysis and focused approaches (20 out of 158 studies). The most common PROGRESS-Plus factors assessed were age (43 studies), socioeconomic status in 35 studies, low- and middle-income countries in 24 studies, gender or sex in 22 studies, race or ethnicity in 17 studies, and four studies assessed multiple factors across which health inequity may exist. Only 16 studies provided a definition of health inequity. Five methodological approaches to consider health equity in systematic reviews of effectiveness were identified: 1) descriptive assessment of reporting and analysis in systematic reviews (140 of 158 studies used a type of descriptive method); 2) descriptive assessment of reporting and analysis in original trials (50 studies); 3) analytic approaches which assessed differential effects across one or more PROGRESS-Plus factors (16 studies); 4) applicability assessment (25 studies) and 5) stakeholder engagement (28 studies), which is a new finding in this update and examines the appraisal of whether relevant stakeholders with lived experience of health inequity were included in the design of systematic reviews or design and delivery of interventions. Reporting for both approaches (analytic and applicability) lacked transparency and was insufficiently detailed to enable the assessment of credibility.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is a need for improvement in conceptual clarity about the definition of health equity, describing sufficient detail about analytic approaches (including subgroup analyses) and transparent reporting of judgments required for applicability assessments in order to consider health equity in systematic reviews of effectiveness.

Sex and gender considerations in reporting guidelines for health research: a systematic review

Background

Despite growing recognition of the importance of sex and gender considerations in health research, they are rarely integrated into research design and reporting. We sought to assess the integration of sex, as a biological attribute, and gender, as a socially constructed identity, in published reporting guidelines.

Methods

We conducted a systematic review of published reporting guidelines listed on the EQUATOR website (www.equator-nework.org) from inception until December 2018. We selected all reporting guidelines (original and extensions) listed in the EQUATOR library. We used EndNote Citation Software to build a database of the statements of each guideline identified as a "full bibliographic reference" and retrieved the full texts. Reviewers independently extracted the data on use of sex and gender terms from the checklist/abstract/main text of guidelines. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and narrative synthesis.

Results

A total of 407 reporting guidelines were included; they were published between 1995 and 2018. Of the 407 guidelines, 235 (57.7%) mentioned at least one of the sex- and gender-related words. In the checklist of the reporting guidelines (n = 363), “sex” and “gender” were mentioned in 50 (13.8%) and 40 (11%), respectively. Only one reporting guideline met our criteria (nonbinary, appropriate categorization, and non-interchangeability) for correct use of sex and gender concepts. Trends in the use of "sex" and "gender" in the checklists showed that the use of “sex” only started in 2003, while “gender” has been in use since 1996.

Conclusions

We assessed the integration of sex and gender in reporting guidelines based on the use of sex- and gender-related words. Our findings showed a low use and integration of sex and gender concepts and their incorrect use. Authors of reporting guidelines should reduce this gap for a better use of research knowledge.

Trial registration PROSPERO no. CRD42019136491.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13293-021-00404-0.

Omission of sex and gender considerations is a recurring deficiency in research design and reporting

Integration of sex and gender considerations in health research reporting guidelines is very low

Three criteria were used to assess correct use of sex and gender concepts

Only one reporting guideline met the three criteria

A call to action is made to address these deficiencies

Sex and Gender Appraisal Tool-Systematic Reviews-2 and Participation-To-Prevalence Ratio assessed to whom the evidence applies in sepsis reviews

OBJECTIVES

To revise a sex and gender appraisal tool for systematic reviews (SGAT-SR) and apply it to Cochrane sepsis reviews.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

The revision process was informed by existing literature on sex, gender, intersectionality, and feedback from an expert advisory board. We revised the items to consider additional factors associated with health inequities and appraised sex and gender considerations using the SGAT-SR-2 and female Participation-to-Prevalence Ratio (PPR) in Cochrane sepsis reviews.

RESULTS

SGAT-SR-2 consists of 19 questions appraising the review's sections and use of the terms sex and gender. amongst 71 SRs assessed, 50.7% included at least one tool item, the most frequent being the number of participants by sex or gender at included study-level (24/71 reviews). Only four reviews provided disaggregated data for the full set of included trials, while two considered other equity-related factors. Reviews rarely appraised possible similarities and differences across sex and gender. In half of a subset of reviews, female participants were under-represented relative to their share of the sepsis population (PPR<0.8).

CONCLUSION

The SGAT-SR-2 tool and the PPR can support the design and appraisal of systematic reviews to assess sex and gender considerations, address to whom evidence applies, and determine future research needs.

Sex as a prognostic factor for mortality in critically ill adults with sepsis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To assess the role of sex as an independent prognostic factor for mortality in patients with sepsis admitted to intensive care units (ICUs).

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO Clinical Trials Registry from inception to 17 July 2020.

STUDY SELECTION

Studies evaluating independent associations between sex and mortality in critically ill adults with sepsis controlling for at least one of five core covariate domains prespecified following a literature search and consensus among experts.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Two authors independently extracted and assessed the risk of bias using Quality In Prognosis Studies tool. Meta-analysis was performed by pooling adjusted estimates. The Grades of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach was used to rate the certainty of evidence.

RESULTS

From 14 304 records, 13 studies (80 520 participants) were included. Meta-analysis did not find sex-based differences in all-cause hospital mortality (OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.32; very low-certainty evidence) and all-cause ICU mortality (OR 1.19, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.78; very low-certainty evidence). However, females presented higher 28-day all-cause mortality (OR 1.18, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.32; very low-certainty evidence) and lower 1-year all-cause mortality (OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.98; low-certainty evidence). There was a moderate risk of bias in the domain adjustment for other prognostic factors in six studies, and the certainty of evidence was further affected by inconsistency and imprecision.

CONCLUSION

The prognostic independent effect of sex on all-cause hospital mortality, 28-day all-cause mortality and all-cause ICU mortality for critically ill adults with sepsis was uncertain. Female sex may be associated with decreased 1-year all-cause mortality.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42019145054.

Female under-representation in sepsis studies: a bibliometric analysis of systematic reviews and guidelines

OBJECTIVES

The objective of the study was to assess female representation in primary studies underpinning recommendations from clinical guidelines and systematic reviews for sepsis treatment in adults.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We conducted a bibliometric study. We removed studies pertaining to sex-specific diseases and included quasirandomized, randomized clinical trials (RCTs), and observational studies. We analyzed the female participation-to-prevalence ratio (PPR).

RESULTS

We included 277 studies published between 1973 and 2017. For the 246 studies for which sex data were available, the share of female participation was 40%. Females overall were under-represented relative to their share of the sepsis population (PPR 0.78). Disaggregated results were reported by sex in 57 studies. In univariate analyses, non-intensive care unit setting and consideration of other social health determinants were significantly associated with greater female participation (P < 0.001 and P = 0.023, respectively). In regression models, studies published in 1996 or later were likely to report sex, while RCTs were unlikely to do so (P = 0.019 and P < 0.001, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Our study points to female underenrollment in sepsis studies. Primary studies underpinning recommendations for sepsis have poorly reported their findings by sex.