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

Operationalizing the GRADE-equity criterion to inform guideline recommendations: application to a medical cannabis guideline

OBJECTIVES

Incorporating health equity considerations into guideline development often requires information beyond that gathered through traditional evidence synthesis methodology. This article outlines an operationalization plan for the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE)-equity criterion to gather and assess evidence from primary studies within systematic reviews, enhancing guideline recommendations to promote equity. We demonstrate its use in a clinical guideline on medical cannabis for chronic pain.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We reviewed GRADE guidance and resources recommended by team members regarding the use of evidence for equity considerations, drafted an operationalization plan, and iteratively refined it through team discussion and feedback and piloted it on a medicinal cannabis guideline.

RESULTS

We propose a seven-step approach: 1) identify disadvantaged populations, 2) examine available data for specific populations, 3) evaluate population baseline risk for primary outcomes, 4) assess representation of these populations in primary studies, 5) appraise analyses, 6) note barriers to implementation of effective interventions for these populations, and 7) suggest supportive strategies to facilitate implementation of effective interventions.

CONCLUSION

Our approach assists guideline developers in recognizing equity considerations, particularly in resource-constrained settings. Its application across various guideline topics can verify its feasibility and necessary adjustments.

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.

Using PROGRESS-plus to identify current approaches to the collection and reporting of equity-relevant data: a scoping review

OBJECTIVES

Our objectives were to identify what and how data relating to the social determinants of health are collected and reported in equity-relevant studies and map these data to the PROGRESS-Plus framework.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We performed a scoping review. We ran two systematic searches of MEDLINE and Embase for equity-relevant studies published during 2021. We included studies in any language without limitations to participant characteristics. Included studies were required to have collected and reported at least two participant variables relevant to evaluating individual-level social determinants of health. We applied the PROGRESS-Plus framework to identify and organize these data.

RESULTS

We extracted data from 200 equity-relevant studies, providing 962 items defined by PROGRESS-Plus. A median of 4 (interquartile range = 2) PROGRESS-Plus items were reported in the included studies. 92% of studies reported age; 78% reported sex/gender; 65% reported educational attainment; 49% reported socioeconomic status; 45% reported race; 44% reported social capital; 33% reported occupation; 14% reported place and 9% reported religion.

CONCLUSION

Our synthesis demonstrated that researchers currently collect a limited range of equity-relevant data, but usefully provides a range of examples spanning PROGRESS-Plus to inform the development of improved, standardized practices.

Equity issues rarely addressed in the development of COVID-19 formal recommendations and good practice statements: a cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

To identify COVID-19 actionable statements (e.g., recommendations) focused on specific disadvantaged populations in the living map of COVID-19 recommendations (eCOVIDRecMap) and describe how health equity was assessed in the development of the formal recommendations.

METHODS

We employed the place of residence, race or ethnicity or culture, occupation, gender or sex, religion, education, socio-economic status, and social capital-Plus framework to identify statements focused on specific disadvantaged populations. We assessed health equity considerations in the evidence to decision frameworks (EtD) of formal recommendations for certainty of evidence and impact on health equity criteria according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations criteria.

RESULTS

We identified 16% (124/758) formal recommendations and 24% (186/819) good practice statements (GPS) that were focused on specific disadvantaged populations. Formal recommendations (40%, 50/124) and GPS (25%, 47/186) most frequently focused on children. Seventy-six percent (94/124) of the recommendations were accompanied with EtDs. Over half (55%, 52/94) of those considered indirectness of the evidence for disadvantaged populations. Considerations in impact on health equity criterion most frequently involved implementation of the recommendation for disadvantaged populations (17%, 16/94).

CONCLUSION

Equity issues were rarely explicitly considered in the development COVID-19 formal recommendations focused on specific disadvantaged populations. Guidance is needed to support the consideration of health equity in guideline development during health emergencies.

"What's Sex and Gender Got to Do With It?" A Scoping Review of Sex- and Gender-Based Analysis in Pharmacoepidemiologic Studies of Medication Adherence

OBJECTIVES

Medication taking is a complex multidimensional behavior that may be impeded by a range of biological and psychosocial factors, including sex and gender. We aimed to synthesize how sex and gender have been reported and analyzed in pharmacoepidemiologic studies of medication.

METHODS

We searched for English-language peer-reviewed articles of observational studies (eg, cross-sectional, cohort, and case-control) that examined medication adherence among adults and included sex or gender in their reporting.

RESULTS

We included 937 studies among 530 537 287 participants published between the year 1979 and 2021. Most studies were cross-sectional (47%), lasted ≤ 1 year (35%), examined self-reported adherence (53%), did not assess specific adherence problem(s) (40%), and included medications for cardiovascular conditions (24%) or systemic infections (24%). A quarter of studies (25%) used sex and gender interchangeably, more than one third of studies (36%) that reported gender data likely collected data on sex, and < 1% of studies described sex and gender as distinct variables. Studies of cisgender participants more often reported that females/women experienced greater adherence problems often than males/men (31% vs 20%), particularly discontinuation and cost-related nonadherence. Only 21 studies (2%) reported on transgender individuals, and these predominantly examined antiretroviral medications for HIV.

CONCLUSIONS

Our review revealed substantial conflation of sex and gender in studies of medication adherence and a paucity of research among transgender individuals. Moreover, our synthesis showed sex/gender disparities in medication taking with studies reporting greater medication adherence problems among cisgender women and transgender participants than cisgender men.

Equity Reporting in Systematic Reviews of Opioid Treatment of Chronic Non-Cancer Pain with Patient-Reported Outcomes

Chronic non-cancer pain can affect a patient's social life, ability to work, and overall quality of life (QoL). Opioid therapy is often prescribed as therapeutic treatment in chronic pain. Systematic reviews (SRs)-the pinnacle of research quality-are often used in guideline development; however, pain may differ across cultures and communities. Thus, examination of equity reporting in such SR is necessary. This study examines reporting using the PROGRESS (Place of resident, Race, Occupation, Gender, Religion, Education, Socioeconomic status, Social capital)-Plus framework to examine equity within SRs with patient reported outcomes of chronic, non-cancer pain. A systematic search for SRs was conducted, which were evaluated for PROGRESS-Plus items and study characteristics were extracted. Among the 46 included SRs, seven did not include any PROGRESS-Plus items. The most commonly reported items were age, included within 34 SRs, followed by gender (30/46), and duration of pain (14/46). All other items were reported in five or less studies. Our investigation revealed a deficiency in SR's reporting of equity measures for opioid treatment of chronic non-cancer pain. Given the need to address healthcare disparities among minorities, implementing the PROGRESS-Plus framework may influence QoL and patient-centered care.

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.

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.

An Analysis of the Use of the Terms Sex and Gender in Research Reported in Nursing Journals

Accurately measuring and reporting the demographic characteristics of research participants are imperative to provide consumers of research with an understanding of who was included in a study. While researchers often, incorrectly, use the variables sex and gender interchangeably, these 2 variables are different. We conducted a content analysis of 239 randomly selected research articles, with the purpose of describing how researchers have used sex and gender in studies published in nursing journals and identifying opportunities for improved clarity and precision in measuring these 2 variables. We found that significant improvement is needed in the way these variables are used/reported.

Sex and gender disparities in patients with advanced gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma: data from the AGAMENON-SEOM registry

Background

Recommendations for research articles include the use of the term sex when reporting biological factors and gender for identities or psychosocial or cultural factors. There is an increasing awareness of incorporating the effect of sex and gender on cancer outcomes. Thus, these types of analyses for advanced gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma are relevant.

Patients and methods

Patients with advanced gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma from the Spanish AGAMENON-SEOM registry treated with first-line combination chemotherapy were selected. Epidemiology, characteristics of the disease, treatment selection, and results were examined according to sex.

Results

This analysis included 3274 advanced gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma patients treated with combination chemotherapy between 2008 and 2021: 2313 (70.7%) men and 961 (29.3%) women. Tumors in females were more frequently HER2-negative (67.8% versus 60.8%; P < 0.0001), grade 3 (45.4% versus 36.8%; P < 0.001), diffuse (43.3% versus 26.5%; P < 0.0001), and signet ring cell histology (40.5 versus 23.9%; P < 0.0001). Peritoneal spread was more common in women (58.6% versus 38.9%; P < 0.0001), while liver burden was lower (58.9% versus 71.1%; P < 0.0001). There were no significant differences in treatment recommendation. Treatment doses, density, and duration were comparable between sexes. Women experienced more diarrhea (46% versus 37%; P < 0.0001), neutropenia (51% versus 43%; P < 0.0001), and anemia (62% versus 57%; P < 0.0001). After a median 59.6-month follow-up [95% confidence interval (CI) 54.5-70.8], there were no statistically significant differences between the sexes in progression-free survival [6.21 months (95% CI 5.8-6.5 months) versus 6.08 months (95% CI 5.8-6.3 months); log-rank test, χ² = 0.1, 1 df, P = 0.8] or in overall survival [10.6 months (95% CI 9.8-11.1 months) versus 10.9 months (95% CI 10.4-11.4 months); log-rank test: χ² = 0.6, 1 df, P = 0.5].

Conclusion

This sex analysis of patients with advanced gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma from the AGAMENON-SEOM registry receiving first-line polychemotherapy found no differences in survival. Although women had worse prognostic histopathology, metastatic disease pattern, and greater toxicity, treatment allocation and compliance were equivalent.

•

Sex and gender are determinants of health inequalities and may affect treatments, tolerability, and therapeutic outcomes.

•

According to sex, subtle biological and clinical differences exist in advanced gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma.

•

Women with advanced gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma experience greater toxicity with therapeutic results comparable with men.

•

Stratification and analysis by sex in studies of gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma should be considered.

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 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.

Considering sex/gender in interventions to promote children’s and adolescents’ leisure-time physical activity: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Aim

The main objectives of this systematic review were to evaluate the effects of interventions on leisure-time PA of boys and girls and to appraise the extent to which studies have taken sex/gender into account.

Subject and methods

PRISMA guidelines were followed. Two researchers independently screened studies for eligibility and assessed the risk of bias. Descriptive analyses were conducted to evaluate intervention effects in relation to the consideration of sex/gender in the studies based on a newly developed checklist. Additionally, meta-analyses were performed to determine the effect of interventions on girls’ and boys’ leisure-time PA.

Results

Overall 31 unique studies reported 44 outcomes on leisure-time PA and 20,088 participants were included in the current study. Consideration of sex/gender aspects in studies is low. PA outcomes with statistically significant same/similar effects in boys and girls showed higher quality of reporting sex/gender aspects of theoretical and/or conceptual linkages with sex/gender, measurement instruments, intervention delivery, location and interventionists and participant flow than PA outcomes without significant effects in both boys and girls or effects only in boys or girls. Interventions had a small but significant effect on girls (number of included studies (k) = 9, g = 0.220, p = .003) and boys (k = 7, g = 0.193, p = .020) leisure-time PA.

Conclusion

Higher reporting of sex/gender aspects may improve leisure-time PA of boys and girls. Nevertheless, there remains a need to address sufficient consideration of sex/gender aspects in interventions in the context of PA.

Sex-related differences in the pharmacological treatment of heart failure

Heart failure (HF) represents a leading cause of morbidity and mortality. However, HF trials highlighted many differences between men and women with HF. Thus, women represent approximately a quarter of people with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), while they account for over half of those with HF with preserved EF (HFpEF). There are also sex-related differences (SRDs) in the pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics and safety profile of some guideline-recommended drugs for the treatment of HF. As compared with men, women with HFrEF are less often treated with guideline-recommended HF drugs, experience more frequent and severe adverse reactions when these drugs are prescribed at the same doses in both sexes, and recent evidence suggests that women might need lower doses than men, bringing into question which are the optimal doses of HF drugs in women and men separately. However, information on SRDs in drug efficacy and safety in patients with HFrEF is very limited due to the underrepresentation of women and the lack of sex-specific evaluations of drug efficacy and safety in HF clinical trials. As a consequence, current clinical guidelines do not provide sex-specific recommendations, even when significant differences exist, at least, in drug safety. The aim of this article is to review the SRDs in the pharmacokinetics, efficacy and safety of guideline-recommended HF drugs and to identify emerging areas of research to improve our understanding of the SRDs, because a better understanding of these differences is the first step to achieve a personalized treatment of HF in women and men.

Current Issues on Research Conducted to Improve Women's Health

There are varied lessons to be learned regarding the current methodological approaches to women’s health research. In the present scheme of growing medical literature and inflation of novel results claiming significance, the sheer amount of information can render evidence-based practice confusing. The factors that classically determined the impact of discoveries appear to be losing ground: citation count and publication rates, hierarchy in author lists according to contribution, and a journal’s impact factor. Through a comprehensive literature search on the currently available data from theses, opinion, and original articles and reviews on this topic, we seek to present to clinicians a narrative synthesis of three crucial axes underlying the totality of the research production chain: (a) critical advances in research methodology, (b) the interplay of academy and industry in a trial conduct, and (c) review- and publication-associated developments. We also provide specific recommendations on the study design and conduct, reviewing the processes and dissemination of data and the conclusions and implementation of findings. Overall, clinicians and the public should be aware of the discourse behind the marketing of alleged breakthrough research. Still, multiple initiatives, such as patient review and strict, supervised literature synthesis, have become more widely accepted. The “bottom-up” approach of a wide dissemination of information to clinicians, together with practical incentives for stakeholders with competing interests to collaborate, promise to improve women’s healthcare.

A sex/gender perspective on interventions to promote children's and adolescents' overall physical activity: results from genEffects systematic review

Background

To evaluate the effects of interventions on children’s and adolescents’ overall physical activity (PA) for boys and girls separately and to appraise the extent to which the studies haven taken sex/gender into account.

Methods

Systematic review and semi-quantitative analysis. Eleven electronic databases were searched to identify all relevant randomized and non-randomized controlled trials. Studies had to report overall PA as the main outcome to be eligible for inclusion in the review. The main outcomes of the studies is a quantified measure of overall PA. Additionally, all studies had to report sex/gender disaggregated overall PA at baseline and/or follow up and/or explain how they dealt with sex/gender during outcome analysis (i.e., sex/gender adjusted analyses) and/or report that there were no differences in the outcome when looking at sex/gender. PRISMA guidelines were followed. Two authors independently screened studies for eligibility and assessed the risk of bias. Semi-quantitative analyses were conducted to evaluate intervention effects, taking into account the extent to which studies have considered sex/gender aspects. To evaluate sex/gender considerations in primary studies, a newly developed sex/gender checklist was used. The study was registered previously (registration number CRD42018109528).

Results

In total, 97 articles reporting 94 unique studies with 164 outcomes for overall PA were included in the present review. Average sample size was 829 participants, ranging from five to 9839. Participants’ ages ranged from three to 19 years. Our review shows that overall 35% of PA outcomes had significant effects in increasing overall PA of children and adolescents. Not including single sex/gender studies, 105 out of 120 PA outcomes resulted in same intervention effects for boys and girls. The interventions reported to have similar effects on PA outcomes for boys and girls showed higher quality of reporting sex/gender aspects of measurement instruments, participant flow and intervention content and materials than PA outcomes with effects only in boys or only in girls. Overall, consideration of sex/gender aspects in intervention studies is low.

Conclusions

There is still a need to address sufficient consideration of sex/gender aspects in developing and implementing interventions in the context of PA.

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.

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

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.

Healthcare Service Use for Mood and Anxiety Disorders Following Acute Myocardial Infarction: A Cohort Study of the Role of Neighbourhood Socioenvironmental Characteristics in a Largely Rural Population

Depression and other mood and anxiety disorders are recognized as common complications following cardiac events. Some studies report poorer cardiac outcomes among patients in socioeconomically marginalized neighbourhoods. This study aimed to describe associations between socioeconomic and built environment characteristics of neighbourhood environments and mental health service contacts following an acute myocardial infarction (AMI or heart attack) among adults in the province of New Brunswick, Canada. This province is characterized largely by residents in small towns and rural areas. A cohort of all adults aged 45 and over surviving AMI and without a recent record of mental disorders was identified by linking provincial medical-administrative datasets. Residential histories were tracked over time to assign neighbourhood measures of marginalization, local climate zones, and physical activity friendliness (i.e., walkability). Cox models were used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the risk of healthcare use for mood and anxiety disorders over the period 2003/04-2015/16 by neighbourhood characteristics. The baseline cohort included 13,330 post-AMI patients, among whom 32.5% were found to have used healthcare services for a diagnosed mood or anxiety disorder at least once during the period of observation. Among men, an increased risk of mental health service use was found among those living in areas characterized by high ethnic concentration (HR: 1.14 (95%CI: 1.03-1.25)). Among women, the risk was significantly higher among those in materially deprived neighbourhoods (HR: 1.16 (95%CI: 1.01-1.33)). We found no convincing evidence of associations between this outcome and the other neighbourhood characteristics considered here. These results suggest that selected features of neighbourhood environments may increase the burden on the healthcare system for mental health comorbidities among adults with cardiovascular disease. Further research is needed to understand the differing needs of socioeconomically marginalized populations to improve mental health outcomes following an acute cardiac event, specifically in the context of smaller and rural communities and of universal healthcare coverage.

Sex- and Gender-specific Analysis in Orthopaedic Studies

BACKGROUND

Orthopaedic studies have reported the prevalence of injuries and outcomes after treatment in men and women patients, and although these differences have been recognized, few studies have evaluated for gender-specific injury patterns, disease progression, and treatment outcomes. A thorough understanding of gender-related differences is important to better individualize treatment and improve outcomes.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

In this study, we sought (1) to determine the proportion of studies published in six orthopaedic journals that provided sex- or gender-specific analyses in 2016 and whether a difference was found in outcomes between men and women and (2) to evaluate whether this proportion varied across several orthopaedic subspecialty journals or between general orthopaedic journals and subspecialty journals.

METHODS

Six leading orthopaedic surgery journals were selected for review, including two general orthopaedic journals (Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery and Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®) and four subspecialty journals (American Journal of Sports Medicine, Journal of Arthroplasty, Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery, and Spine). Journal issues published in the even-numbered months of 2016 were reviewed for clinical randomized controlled, cohort, and case-control studies in which women were a part of the study population. A total of 712 studies evaluating 24,607,597 patients met the criteria and were included in our review of publications from 2016. The selected studies were stratified based on whether gender was a variable in a multifactorial statistical model. Outcomes of interest included the proportion of patients who were women and the presence or absence of a gender-specific analysis. These endpoints were compared between journals.

RESULTS

Overall, 55% (13,565,773 of 24,607,597) of patients analyzed in these studies were women. Only 34% (241 of 712) of the studies published in 2016 included gender as variable in a multifactorial statistical model. Of these, 39% (93 of 241) demonstrated a difference in the outcomes between patients who were men and women. The Journal of Arthroplasty had the greatest percentage of patients who were women (60%, 9,251,068 of 15,557,187) and the American Journal of Sports Medicine had the lowest (44%, 1,027,857 of 2,357,139; p < 0.001). Orthopaedic subspecialty journals tended to include a greater percentage of women (54%) than did general orthopaedic journals (50%; p = 0.04).

CONCLUSION

Currently, it is unclear what percentage of published orthopaedic studies should include a gender-specific analysis. In the current study, more than one-third of publications that performed a gender-specific analysis demonstrated a difference in outcomes between men and women, thereby emphasizing the need to determine when such an analysis is warranted.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Future studies should aim to determine when a gender-specific analysis is necessary to improve the management of orthopaedic injuries in men and women. It is important for investigators at the individual-study level to look for every opportunity to ensure that both men's and women's health needs are met by performing appropriate by-sex and by-gender analyses, but not to perform them when they are unnecessary or inappropriate.

Equity was rarely considered in Cochrane Eyes and Vision systematic reviews and primary studies on cataract

OBJECTIVE

We sought to understand the extent to which Cochrane Eyes and Vision systematic reviews of interventions for cataract, and primary studies, consider equity.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

This is a review of Cochrane Eyes and Vision systematic reviews (CSRs) on cataract published on the Cochrane Library (end of March 2019) (n = 23), and recently published primary studies included in those reviews (n = 62), using the PROGRESSPlus framework.

RESULTS

One CSR considered equity as a topic. Four (17%) CSRs included a low- and middle-income country (LMIC) author; one of them was a first author. The CSR with equity as a main topic restricted primary studies to those conducted in LMICs; otherwise none of the systematic reviews used PROGRESS factors as inclusion or exclusion criteria. None of the CSRs reported subgroup analyses by any PROGRESS factor, although these were planned in two. Two of the primary studies were led by an LMIC author; 42% involved LMIC authors; 37% were conducted in LMICs; 73% of studies reported on gender/sex of participants, but other PROGRESS factors were less frequently reported. Three studies reported subgroup analyses by sex; one reported subgroup analyses by race/ethnicity.

CONCLUSION

PROGRESS factors and equity are rarely considered in studies of interventions for cataract, and this is reflected in the associated Cochrane reviews.

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

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.

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

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.

Sex-Specific Considerations in Guidelines Generation and Application

New knowledge about male-female differences in pathophysiology, diagnosis, and treatment is shifting the practice of medicine from a one-size-fits all approach to a more individualized process that considers sex-specific interventions at the point of care. In this article, we review how clinical practice guideline committees can incorporate a structured framework to determine whether sex-specific assessments of the quality of the evidence or the particular recommendations should be made. The process can be operationalized by societies who author clinical practice guidelines by developing formal policies to approach biological sex in a systematic way, and by ensuring that writing committees include an individual who will champion the formal appraisal of the literature for associations between sex and the outcomes of interest. Ongoing challenges are discussed, and solutions are provided for how to disaggregate the evidence, how to assess bias, how to improve search strategies, and what to do when the data are insufficient to make sex-specific recommendations. Application of sex-specific recommendations will involve routinely asking whether the presentation, diagnostic workup, or management might change for each patient if they were the opposite sex.