Reporting of sex and gender in randomized controlled trials in Canada: a cross-sectional methods study

Gender-transformative school-based sexual health intervention: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

There is general agreement that sexuality is a central aspect of human development; it is key in sexual health and reproductive education during adolescence. However, in spite of the existing interventions on this topic and the evidence generated, the inclusion of a gender focus in sexuality is relatively recent and there is little evidence available, thus structured and corroborated interventions with a gender-transforming perspective in sexuality are required.

METHODS

We will use a mixed method experimental design with a parallel cluster-randomized trial (GRTs) that will evaluate the effectiveness of a comprehensive gender-transformative intervention of sexual education (ENFOCATE -Focus-on-), which will be complemented with qualitative studies to understand the implementation process. The participants will be 609 10th and 11th-grade students. The randomization will be by grade, and the data will be collected at three moments (pre-intervention, post-intervention, and a 3-month follow-up).

DISCUSSION

Comprehensive, gender-focused, and culturally pertinent interventions in sexuality are needed for adolescents of countries with high, middle, and low incomes. These produce better results in terms of sexual health, and including a gender-transformative focus contributes to equity in health. Focus-on is unique since it uses a comprehensive gender-transformative intervention in sexual education that will allow putting into practice a program based both on international evidence and that which arises from the object population. It also uses a culturally-sensitive focus, since it is designed based on the characteristics of the object population; it will allow adapting some activities to the needs of the context in which it is developed.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The study was prospectively registered on June 6, 2023, at ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT05896540. Protocol version number 1.0. May 22, 2023.

Sex and gender-based analysis and diversity metric reporting in acute care trials published in high-impact journals: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To characterise sex and gender-based analysis (SGBA) and diversity metric reporting, representation of female/women participants in acute care trials and temporal changes in reporting before and after publication of the 2016 Sex and Gender Equity in Research guideline.

DESIGN

Systematic review.

DATA SOURCES

We searched MEDLINE for trials published in five leading medical journals in 2014, 2018 and 2020.

STUDY SELECTION

Trials that enrolled acutely ill adults, compared two or more interventions and reported at least one clinical outcome.

DATA ABSTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

4 reviewers screened citations and 22 reviewers abstracted data, in duplicate. We compared reporting differences between intensive care unit (ICU) and cardiology trials.

RESULTS

We included 88 trials (75 (85.2%) ICU and 13 (14.8%) cardiology) (n=111 428; 38 140 (34.2%) females/women). Of 23 (26.1%) trials that reported an SGBA, most used a forest plot (22 (95.7%)), were prespecified (21 (91.3%)) and reported a sex-by-intervention interaction with a significance test (19 (82.6%)). Discordant sex and gender terminology were found between headings and subheadings within baseline characteristics tables (17/32 (53.1%)) and between baseline characteristics tables and SGBA (4/23 (17.4%)). Only 25 acute care trials (28.4%) reported race or ethnicity. Participants were predominantly white (78.8%) and male/men (65.8%). No trial reported gendered-social factors. SGBA reporting and female/women representation did not improve temporally. Compared with ICU trials, cardiology trials reported significantly more SGBA (15/75 (20%) vs 8/13 (61.5%) p=0.005).

CONCLUSIONS

Acute care trials in leading medical journals infrequently included SGBA, female/women and non-white trial participants, reported race or ethnicity and never reported gender-related factors. Substantial opportunity exists to improve SGBA and diversity metric reporting and recruitment of female/women participants in acute care trials.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42022282565.

Improving Health Professional Recognition and Response to Child Maltreatment and Intimate Partner Violence: Protocol for Two Mixed Methods Pilot Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

The optimal educational approach for preparing health professionals with the knowledge and skills to effectively recognize and respond to family violence, including child maltreatment and intimate partner violence, remains unclear. The Violence, Evidence, Guidance, and Action (VEGA) Family Violence Education Resources is a novel intervention that can be completed via self-directed learning or in a workshop format; both approaches focus on improving health professional preparedness to address family violence.

OBJECTIVE

Our studies aim to determine the acceptability and feasibility of conducting a randomized controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness of the self-directed (experimental intervention) and workshop (active control) modalities of VEGA, as an adjunct to standard education, to improve learner (Researching the Impact of Service provider Education [RISE] with Residents) and independent practice (RISE with Veterans) health professional preparedness, knowledge, and skills related to recognizing family violence in their health care encounters.

METHODS

The RISE with Residents and RISE with Veterans research studies use embedded experimental mixed methods research designs. The quantitative strand for each study follows the principles of a pilot randomized controlled trial. For RISE with Residents, we aimed to recruit 80 postgraduate medical trainees; for RISE with Veterans, we intended to recruit 80 health professionals who work or have worked with Veterans (or their family members) of the Canadian military or the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in a direct service capacity. Participants complete quantitative assessments at baseline, after intervention, and at 3-month follow-up. A subset of participants from each arm also undergoes a qualitative semistructured interview with the aim of describing participants' perceptions of the value and impact of each VEGA modality, as well as research burden. Scores on potential outcome measures will be mapped to excerpts of qualitative data via a mixed methods joint display to aid in the interpretation of findings.

RESULTS

We consented 71 individuals to participate in the RISE with Residents study. Data collection was completed on August 31, 2023, and data are currently being cleaned and prepared for analysis. As of January 15, 2024, we consented 34 individuals in the RISE with Veterans study; data collection will be completed in March 2024. For both studies, no data analysis had taken place at the time of manuscript submission. Results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications; academic conferences; and posting and sharing of study summaries and infographics on social media, the project website, and via professional network listserves.

CONCLUSIONS

Reducing the impacts of family violence remains a pressing public health challenge. Both research studies will provide a valuable methodological contribution about the feasibility of trial methods in health professions education focused on family violence. They will also contribute to education science about the differences in the effectiveness of self-directed versus facilitator-led learning strategies.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05490121, https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05490121; ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05490004, https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05490004.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

DERR1-10.2196/50864.

The impact of smartphone app-based interventions on adolescents' dietary intake: a systematic review and evaluation of equity factor reporting in intervention studies

CONTEXT

Adolescence is a critical stage for improving nutrition. The popularity of smartphones makes them an ideal platform for administering interventions to adolescents. A systematic review has yet to assess the impact of smartphone app-based interventions exclusively on adolescents' dietary intake. Furthermore, despite the impact of equity factors on dietary intake and the claim for mobile health of increased accessibility, there is minimal research on the reporting of equity factors in the evaluation of smartphone app-based nutrition-intervention research.

OBJECTIVES

This systematic review examines the effectiveness of smartphone app-based interventions on adolescents' dietary intake and the frequency with which equity factors and statistical analyses specific to equity factors are reported in these intervention studies.

DATA SOURCES

Databases (ie, Scopus, CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, ERIC, and Cochrane Central Register for Randomized Control Trials) were searched for studies published from January 2008 to October 2022. Smartphone app-based intervention studies that were nutrition focused, evaluated at least 1 dietary intake variable, and included participants with a mean age between 10 and 19 years were included. All geographic locations were included.

DATA EXTRACTION AND ANALYSIS

Study characteristics, intervention results, and reported equity factors were extracted. Because of the heterogeneity of dietary outcomes, findings were reported as a narrative synthesis.

CONCLUSION

In total, 3087 studies were retrieved, 14 of which met the inclusion criteria. Eleven studies reported a statistically significant improvement in at least 1 dietary outcome because of the intervention. Reporting of at least 1 equity factor across articles' Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion sections was minimal (n = 5), and statistical analyses specific to equity factors were rare, occurring in only 4 of the 14 included studies. Future interventions should include a measurement of intervention adherence and report the impact of equity factors on the effectiveness and applicability of interventions for equity-deserving groups.

Sex or Gender Reporting in Ophthalmology Clinical Trials Among US Food and Drug Administration Approvals, 1995 to 2022

Importance

As critical determinants of scientific rigor, reproducibility, and equity, sex and gender should be considered in clinical trial design and reporting.

Objective

To evaluate the accuracy of sex and gender reporting and extent of sex- and gender-based analysis in clinical trials associated with US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) drug approvals between January 1, 1995, and December 31, 2022.

Design, Setting, and Participants

In this cross-sectional study of participants enrolled in FDA ophthalmology trials, the following trial documents were reviewed by pairs of independent reviewers in decreasing order of priority: peer-reviewed publication, ClinicalTrials.gov report, and FDA medical and statistical reviews. Trial protocols and supplementary materials were also reviewed.

Main Outcome and Measures

The proportion of trials that correctly applied sex and gender terminology, reported the method of assessing sex or gender, and conducted sex- or gender-based data analysis; incorrect application of sex and gender terminology was defined as interchangeable use of sex- and gender-related terms without a clear justification.

Results

Between 1995 and 2022, 34 ophthalmic drugs corresponding to 85 trials (34 740 participants) received FDA approval, of which 16 drugs (47.1%) corresponding to 32 trials (18 535 participants [37.6%]) were associated with peer-reviewed publications. Sixteen trials used sex and gender terminology correctly (19.5%). No trial reported how sex and gender were collected nor enrolled participants from sexual and gender identity minority populations. Most trials reported sex- and gender-disaggregated demographic data (96.5%), but few conducted sex- or gender-based analysis for data on dropout (1.2%), primary outcomes (28.2%), secondary outcomes (2.4%), and adverse events (9.4%). Erroneous sex and gender reporting was associated with later publication year (2008.5 vs 2001.0; median difference, 7.5; 95% CI, -6.0 to 11.0; P < .001) and higher journal influence metrics, including 2022 journal impact factor (13.7 vs 5.9; median difference, 7.8; 95% CI, -1.4 to 152.4, P < .001) and 2022 journal citation indicator (4.9 vs 2.1; median difference, 2.9; 95% CI, 0-20.0, P < .001).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this observational study, over three-quarters of ophthalmology trials associated with FDA drug approvals conflated sex and gender and over two-thirds lacked sex- and gender-based analyses. More rigorous integration of sex and gender appears warranted for FDA, and presumably other trials, to improve their validity, reproducibility, and equity.

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.

Are sex and gender considered in head and neck cancer clinical studies?

We analyzed the inclusion of sex and/or gender (S/G) in Head and Neck Cancer (HNC) clinical studies, through inspecting ClinicalTrials.gov (AACT) and the mention of Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) on a specific subgroup, namely oral cavity, larynx and oropharynx. Only 5% of HNC studies mention S/G as a planned analytical variable. Proportionally more observational studies treated S/G as an analytical variable than interventional studies (10% vs 5%, P-value ≤ 0.001), 8% of studies that mentioned S/G involved more than 100 subjects while 4% less than 100 (P-value ≤ 0.001). In randomized protocols, S/G was mentioned more in studies with a planned sample of more than 100 patients and including HPV status (P-value < 0.05). Small controlled studies have lower mention of S/G as an analytical variable than uncontrolled studies (4% and 10%, respectively among studies with less than 100 subjects). Significantly greater mention of S/G as an analytical variable is observed in controlled and randomized studies with a sample size greater than 100 subjects. HPV was mentioned in only 18% of oral cavity-larynx-oropharynx studies. Interventional studies do not regularly account for S/G during HNC study design. Thus, although fundamental, in studies concerning HNC the S/G variable is often not considered. In trials published in scientific journals (P-value = 0.01) and in more recent clinical trials (P-value = 0.002), S/G is taken more into account suggesting an increasing awareness on its importance. However, the need to systematically include S/G in study design clearly emerges, to better highlight sex-related differences in disease incidence and prognosis and best imbue science and medicine with the proper biological and cultural differences.

Considering Sex and Gender in Therapeutics throughout the Product Life Cycle: A Narrative Review and Case Study of Gilteritinib

Background

Biological sex-related factors influence pharmacokinetic, pharmacodynamic, and disease processes that may affect the predictability of drug dosing and adverse effects, which may in turn have clinical consequences for patients' lives. Nonetheless, sex-related factors are not always taken into account in clinical trial design or clinical decision-making, for multiple reasons, including a paucity of studies that clearly and objectively study and measure sex-disaggregated and sex-related outcomes, as well as gaps in regulatory and policy structures for integrating these considerations.

Objectives

To complete a narrative review and use a case study to understand available evidence, inform future research, and provide policy considerations that incorporate information on sex- and gender-related factors into clinician-facing resources.

Methods

A comprehensive review of available literature was conducted using a sex- and gender-based analysis plus (SGBA Plus) approach to identify sex- and/or gender-disaggregated information for gilteritinib, a chemotherapeutic agent. Systematic searches were performed in MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), CENTRAL (Wiley), International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (Ovid), Scopus, and ClinicalTrials.gov, from inception to March 18, 2021. The information was then summarized and compared with the Canadian product monograph for this drug.

Results

Of 311 records screened, 3 provided SGBA Plus information as a component of outcomes, rather than just as categories or demographic characteristics. Of these, 2 were case studies, and 1 was a clinical trial. No studies from the ClinicalTrials.gov database that were in progress at the time of this review provided details about sex-disaggregated outcomes. The Canadian product monograph did not include sex-disaggregated outcome data.

Conclusions

The available evidence from clinical trials, other published literature, and guidance documents does not provide details about sex-disaggregated outcomes for gilteritinib. This paucity of available evidence may create a challenge for clinicians who are making decisions about the efficacy and safety of prescribed therapies in sex-specific populations that have not been well studied.

Consideration of sex/gender in publications of quantitative health-related research: Development and application of an assessment matrix

During the last years the need to integrate sex and gender in health-related research for better and fairer science became increasingly apparent. Various guidelines and checklists were developed to encourage and support researchers in considering the entangled dimensions of sex/gender in their research. However, a tool for the assessment of sex/gender consideration and its visualization is still missing. We aim to fill this gap by introducing an assessment matrix that can be used as a flexible instrument for comprehensively evaluating the sex/gender consideration in quantitative health-related research. The matrix was developed through an iterative and open process based on the interdisciplinary expertise represented in our research team and currently published guidelines. The final matrix consists of 14 different items covering the whole research process and the publication of results. Additionally, we introduced a method to graphically display this evaluation. By developing the matrix, we aim to provide users with a tool to systematically compare sex/gender consideration qualitatively between different publications and even different fields of study. This way, the assessment matrix represents a tool to identify research gaps and a basis for future research. In the long term, the implementation of this tool to evaluate the consideration of sex/gender should contribute to more sex/gender equitable health-related research.

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.

"I Just Want to Feel Safe Going to a Doctor": Experiences of Female Patients with Chronic Conditions in Australia

Background

The androcentric history of medicine and medical research has led to an ongoing sex and gender gap in health research and education. Sex and gender gaps in research and education may translate into real-life health inequities for women. This study aimed to explore the experiences of female patients with chronic health conditions in the Australian health system, considering existing sex and gender gaps in medicine.

Methods

This qualitative study used semistructured in-depth interviews with a sample of adult women with chronic conditions in Australia. Thematic analysis was undertaken, guided by Braun and Clarke. Software NVivoX64 assisted in the management of the data. Coding was performed before grouping into subthemes and central themes. To allow for potential researcher biases, the principal researcher engaged in the practice of reflexivity, including the writing of detailed notes during analysis.

Results

Twenty adult Australian women with chronic conditions were interviewed. Diagnoses were varied and included Ehlers-Danlos syndrome, chronic fatigue syndrome, functional neurological disorder, and inflammatory bowel disease. Four central themes emerged: diagnostic difficulties; spectrum of health care experiences; understanding medical complexity; and coping with symptoms.

Conclusions

Women with chronic conditions in Australia report pain, fatigue, and suffering that significantly impacts upon their daily lives. There was a shared experience of feeling that the pain and suffering of women was dismissed or not taken seriously. Many women expressed trauma because of their experiences in health care and often this led to a fear of accessing health services. The participants highlighted a need for more knowledge, understanding, and empathy from health care practitioners.

Considerations of sex and gender dimensions by research ethics committees: a scoping review

Despite a growing consensus on the importance of integrating sex and gender in health research, research across disciplines continues to be conducted and reported without a gender focus. Research ethics committees (RECs) can play a particularly powerful role in identifying the gender gaps at an early stage of the development of research protocols. Their role is missing in the dialogue related to improving gender awareness and analysis in health research. A scoping review was conducted to examine the extent to which RECs discuss and consider the inclusion and analysis of sex and gender in health research and to examine the literature regarding the gender balance of RECs. The limited literature around gender and research ethics reveals the power and potential of RECs to ensure that gender dimensions are thoughtfully included in health research, and sheds light on the gaps that exist. These include an under-representation of women on RECs, a lack of awareness of the importance of gender-related aspects in health research and a paucity of gender-related training to RECs. Guidelines such as the Sex and Gender Equity in Research guidelines are required for RECs to strengthen the ways in which health research is gendered from conception of a research protocol to its publication.

Mind the Gap: Reporting and Analysis of Sex and Gender in Health Research in Australia, a Cross-Sectional Study

Introduction:

Historically, medical studies have underrepresented female participants and most research data have been collected from males and generalized to other genders. This article aims to determine if there is a sex and/or gender gap in recent Australian health research.

Methods:

This descriptive cross-sectional study of the published literature examines recent Australian-based clinical trials for inclusion of sex and gender. Medians and interquartile ranges (IQRs) were calculated for study sample sizes and female:male representation. Proportion of sex and/or gender was analyzed by the clinical specialty of the trials. t-Tests were used to ascertain significance of any difference in recruitment of female and males.

Results:

A total of 88 articles were included in the analysis. Most studies (n = 63) were randomized clinical controlled trials. Overall women constituted 55% (IQR 30% of all participants). Of the 71 mixed-sex studies, only 8.9% (n = 7) analyzed the data by sex. Women were significantly underrepresented in cardiology and nephrology studies and overrepresented in psychiatry, care of the elderly, and orthopedic studies.

Conclusions:

When analyzed by specialty, women are overrepresented in specialties considered to be female patient dominated, such as psychiatry and care of the elderly, and underrepresented in specialties such as cardiology and nephrology. The overrepresentation of women in some specialties can reinforce gender stereotypes, potentially harming women. In addition, exclusion of males from these areas of research may be of disservice to men's health.

Gender Differences in Medication Adverse Effects Experienced by People Living With Chronic Pain

Objectives

Understanding gender differences in chronic pain (CP) outcome research is essential to optimal treatment delivery. This study explored the associations between gender identity, gender roles, and the number of non-life-threatening pain medication adverse effects reported as severe by people living with CP.

Methods

The analyses were conducted using the COPE Cohort, a dataset generated through a web-based recruitment of adults with CP. Participants were asked how they identified themselves (women, men, unknown, unspecified) and gender roles were measured using the Bem Sex-Role Inventory (subgroups were formed applying the median split method). Pain medication adverse effects were assessed using a standardized checklist (none/mild/moderate/severe). A zero-inflated Poisson model was used to assess gender identity, gender roles and their interaction as potential predictors of the number of pain medication adverse effects.

Results

A total of 1,343 participants reported using pain medications. Adjusting for potential confounders, both gender identity (men vs. women: ß = −0.32, p = 0.0024) and gender roles (androgynous vs. undifferentiated: ß = 0.26, p = 0.0030) were associated with the number of pain medication adverse effects reported as severe, and they interacted with each other. The stratified analysis by gender roles showed that women reported a greater number of severe adverse effects than men among those classified as masculine and androgynous.

Discussion

Although we are unable to confirm whether the associations can be explained by differences in the experience or in the reporting of effects, gender identity and gender roles should both be explored when studying pain medication adverse effects.

A Sex- and Gender-Based Analysis of Adverse Drug Reactions: A Scoping Review of Pharmacovigilance Databases

Drug-related adverse events or adverse drug reactions (ADRs) are currently partially or substantially under-reported. ADR reporting systems need to expand their focus to include sex- and gender-related factors in order to understand, prevent, or reduce the occurrence of ADRs in all people, particularly women. This scoping review describes adverse drug reactions reported to international pharmacovigilance databases. It identifies the drug classes most commonly associated with ADRs and synthesizes the evidence on ADRs utilizing a sex- and gender-based analysis plus (SGBA+) to assess the differential outcomes reported in the individual studies. We developed a systematic search strategy and applied it to six electronic databases, ultimately including 35 papers. Overall, the evidence shows that women are involved in more ADR reports than men across different countries, although in some cases, men experience more serious ADRs. Most studies were conducted in higher-income countries; the terms adverse drug reactions and adverse drug events are used interchangeably, and there is a lack of standardization between systems. Additional research is needed to identify the relationships between sex- and gender-related factors in the occurrence and reporting of ADRs to adequately detect and prevent ADRs, as well as to tailor and prepare effective reporting for the lifecycle management of drugs.

Patient engagement partnerships in clinical trials (PEP-CT): protocol for the systematic development and testing of patient partner and investigator decision aids

INTRODUCTION

Building capacity to improve sex/gender knowledge and strengthen patient engagement in clinical trials requires training and support. The overall goal of this 2-year project is to refine, translate and evaluate two web-based open-access patient and investigator decision aids aimed to improve patient engagement partnerships in clinical trials.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Two decision aids were designed in Phase 1 of this programme of research and this protocol describes a subsequent sequential phased approach to refine/translate (Phase 2A) and conduct alpha/usability (Phase 2B) and beta/field (Phase 3) testing. Decision aid development is guided by the International Patient Decision Aid Standards, User-Centred Design, Ottawa Decision-Support Framework and the Ottawa Model of Research Use. We have integrated patient-oriented research methods by engaging patient partners across all phases of our programme of research. Decision aids will first be refined and then translated to French (Phase 2A). Eight iterative cycles of semistructured interviews with 40 participants (20 patient partners and 20 investigators) will be conducted to determine usability (Phase 2B). A pragmatic pre/post pilot study design will then be implemented for field/beta testing using another purposive sample of 80 English-speaking and French-speaking participants (40 patients and 40 investigators). The samples are purposive to ensure an equal representation of English-speaking and French-speaking participants and an equal representation of men and women. Since sex and/or gender differences in utilisation and effectiveness of decision aids have not been previously reported, Phase 3 outcomes will be reported for the total sample and separately for men and women.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethics approval has been granted from the University of Toronto (41109, 28 September 2021). Informed consent will be obtained from participants. Dissemination will include co-authored publications, conference presentations, educational national public forums, fact sheets/newsletters, social media sharing and videos/webinars.

Sex, Allergic Diseases and Omalizumab

Gender differences are increasingly emerging in every area of medicine including drug therapy; however, specific gender-targeted studies are infrequent. Sex is a fundamental variable, which cannot be neglected. When optimizing therapies, gender pharmacology must always be considered in order to improve the effectiveness and safety of the use of drugs. Knowledge of gender differences promotes appropriate use of therapies and greater health protection for both genders. Further development of gender research would make it possible to report on differences in the assimilation and response of the female organism as compared to the male, in order to identify potential risks and benefits that can be found between genders. Furthermore, a better understanding of sex/gender-related influences, with regard to pharmacological activity, would allow the development of personalized “tailor-made” medicines. Here, we summarize the state of knowledge on the role of sex in several allergic diseases and their treatment with omalizumab, the first biologic drug authorized for use in the field of allergology.

Sex Inequalities in Medical Research: A Systematic Scoping Review of the Literature

Background: Historically, medical studies have excluded female participants and research data have been collected from males and generalized to females. The gender gap in medical research, alongside overarching misogyny, results in real-life disadvantages for female patients. This systematic scoping review of the literature aims to determine the extent of research into the medical research sex and gender gap and to assess the extent of misogyny, if any, in modern medical research.

Methods: Initial literature searches were conducted using PubMed, Science Direct, PsychINFO and Google Scholar. Articles published between January 01, 2009, and December 31, 2019, were included. An article was deemed to display misogyny if it discussed the female aesthetic in terms of health, but did not measure health or could not be utilized to improve clinical practice.

Results: Of the 17 included articles, 12 examined the gender gap in medical research and 5 demonstrated misogyny, assessing female attractiveness for alleged medical reasons. Females remain broadly under-represented in the medical literature, sex and gender are poorly reported and inadequately analyzed in research, and misogynistic perceptions continue to permeate the narrative.

Conclusion: The gender gap and misogynistic studies remain present in the contemporary medical literature. Reasons and implications for practice are discussed.

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.

The gender and geography of publishing: a review of sex/gender reporting and author representation in leading general medical and global health journals

Introduction

Diverse gender and geographical representation matters in research. We aimed to review medical and global health journals’ sex/gender reporting, and the gender and geography of authorship.

Methods

542 research and non-research articles from 14 selected journals were reviewed using a retrospective survey design. Paper screening and systematic data extraction was conducted with descriptive statistics and regression analyses calculated from the coded data. Outcome measures were journal characteristics, the extent to which published articles met sex/gender reporting guidelines, plus author gender and location of their affiliated institution.

Results

Five of the fourteen journals explicitly encourage sex/gender analysis in their author instructions, but this did not lead to increased sex/gender reporting beyond the gender of study participants (OR=3.69; p=0.000 (CI 1.79 to 7.60)). Just over half of research articles presented some level of sex/gender analysis, while 40% mentioned sex/gender in their discussion. Articles with women first and last authors were 2.4 times more likely to discuss sex/gender than articles with men in those positions (p=0.035 (CI 1.062 to 5.348)). First and last authors from high-income countries (HICs) were 19 times as prevalent as authors from low-income countries; and women from low-income and middle-income countries were at a disadvantage in terms of the impact factor of the journals they published in.

Conclusion

Global health and medical research fails to consistently apply a sex/gender lens and remains largely the preserve of authors in HIC. Collaborative partnerships and funding support are needed to promote gender-sensitive research and dismantle historical power dynamics in authorship.

Systematic review of gender bias in vortioxetine clinical trials

This paper evaluates gender bias in the published clinical trials of Vortioxetine. We conducted a systematic review of controlled clinical trials of Vortioxetine for the treatment of depression. The literature search was performed using MEDLINE and following the corresponding international recommendations. We identified 42 articles, of which 23 were included. The proportion of women ranged from 47%-75% and the percentage of women included in the 10,404 total patients sample was 65%. The separate analysis of the main variable between the subpopulations of men and women was only carried out in 3/23 publications included. In contrast, 6/23 trials analyzed secondary variables separated by sex. No trials discussed the results separately by sex. The proportion of women included was slightly higher than that in clinical trials of other antidepressants. However, the analysis of the main result or secondary variables by sex, as well as discussing the results separately by sex, are scarce. This gives rise to gender bias in these works.

Patient Engagement Partnerships in Clinical Trials: Development of Patient Partner and Investigator Decision Aids

BACKGROUND

A 2017 systematic review suggested patient engagement in clinical trials has been limited, with little active engagement in trial design or data analysis, interpretation or dissemination. Additionally, there remains limited sex/gender reporting in clinical trial research.

OBJECTIVES

The overall goal of this project was to disseminate sex/gender knowledge and build capacity for patient engagement in clinical trials. Specific objectives were to (1) create capacity and identify opportunities for patient engagement in clinical trials and sponsor- or investigator-led activities (e.g. clinical trial design and conduct); and (2) enhance new/early investigator sex/gender knowledge and skills related to patient-oriented research (POR).

METHODS

We used the Canadian Institutes of Health Research Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research (SPOR) Capacity Development Framework and the SPOR Patient Engagement Framework to guide three phases of this project: (1) conduct a scoping review using methods described by the Evidence for Policy and Practice Information (EPPI) and the Coordinating Centre at the Institute of Education (Phase 1); (2) host a 1-day POR consultation workshop (Phase 2); and (3) deliver a new/early investigator POR training day (Phase 3). Six electronic databases (CINAHL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsychInfo, the Cochrane Library, and AMED) were searched from 1996 using keywords and Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) terms in accordance with the International Association for Public Participation (IAP2) and the search criteria in the bibliographic databases. Standard approaches were used to search the grey literature.

RESULTS

A total of 79 studies and over 150 websites were subject to data abstraction by team members, capturing information on sex/gender and SPOR's patient engagement guiding principles of inclusiveness, support, mutual respect, and co-building. Results were presented to 32 key stakeholders at the consultation workshop and input was sought on next steps using nominal group techniques. Based on the plethora of existing POR resources, relevant POR information from the scoping review was collated into two decision aids (patient and investigator) to determine readiness to engage with/as a patient partner in a clinical trial. The decision aids were presented at a POR training day with 88 new/early investigators, clinicians, patient partners and decision makers. The decision aids showed 'good' usability, assessed using the System Usability Scale (SUS). Attendees thought the decision aids were engaging, they increased their understanding of sex/gender, patient engagement and POR, and they would recommend them to others. POR principles and practices were integrated across all phases of the project. Patient partners (1) identified research priorities/search terms; (2) collected/analyzed data; (3) designed the patient partner decision aid; and (4) disseminated the results through presentation.

CONCLUSION

Our digital patient partner and investigator decision aids are the first to provide information technology to deliver sex/gender, POR knowledge, and decision support beyond the traditional decision aids used for health screening and/or treatment decisions. The decision aids have the potential to make a significant contribution to Canada's Strategy for POR and support the collaborative efforts of patients and investigators to build a sustainable, accessible and equitable health care system.

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.

Lost in the shadows: reflections on the dark side of co-production

This article is a response to Oliver et al.'s Commentary 'The dark side of coproduction: do the costs outweigh the benefits for health research?' recently published in Health Research Policy and Systems (2019, 17:33). The original commentary raises some important questions about how and when to co-produce health research, including highlighting various professional costs to those involved. However, we identify four related limitations in their inquiry, as follows: (1) the adoption of a problematically expansive definition of co-production that fails to acknowledge key features that distinguish co-production from broader collaboration; (2) a strong focus on technocratic rationales for co-producing research and a relative neglect of democratic rationales; (3) the transposition of legitimate concerns relating to collaboration between researchers and practitioners onto work with patients, service users and marginalised citizens; and (4) the presentation of bad practice as an inherent flaw, or indeed 'dark side', of co-production without attending to the corrupting influence of contextual factors within academic research that facilitate and even promote such malpractice. The Commentary's limitations can be seen to reflect the contemporary use of the term 'co-production' more broadly. We describe this phenomenon as 'cobiquity' - an apparent appetite for participatory research practice and increased emphasis on partnership working, in combination with the related emergence of a plethora of 'co' words, promoting a conflation of meanings and practices from different collaborative traditions. This phenomenon commonly leads to a misappropriation of the term 'co-production'. Our main motivation is to address this imprecision and the detrimental impact it has on efforts to enable co-production with marginalised and disadvantaged groups. We conclude that Oliver et al. stray too close to 'the problem' of 'co-production' seeing only the dark side rather than what is casting the shadows. We warn against such a restricted view and argue for greater scrutiny of the structural factors that largely explain academia's failure to accommodate and promote the egalitarian and utilitarian potential of co-produced research.

Reporting of health equity considerations in cluster and individually randomized trials

Background

The randomized controlled trial (RCT) is considered the gold standard study design to inform decisions about the effectiveness of interventions. However, a common limitation is inadequate reporting of the applicability of the intervention and trial results for people who are “socially disadvantaged” and this can affect policy-makers’ decisions. We previously developed a framework for identifying health-equity-relevant trials, along with a reporting guideline for transparent reporting. In this study, we provide a descriptive assessment of health-equity considerations in 200 randomly sampled equity-relevant trials.

Methods

We developed a search strategy to identify health-equity-relevant trials published between 2013 and 2015. We randomly sorted the 4316 records identified by the search and screened studies until 100 individually randomized (RCTs) and 100 cluster randomized controlled trials (CRTs) were identified. We developed and pilot-tested a data extraction form based on our initial work, to inform the development of our reporting guideline for equity-relevant randomized trials.

Results

In total, 39 trials (20%) were conducted in a low- and middle-income country and 157 trials (79%) in a high-income country focused on socially disadvantaged populations (78% CRTs, 79% RCTs). Seventy-four trials (37%) reported a subgroup analysis across a population characteristic associated with disadvantage (25% CRT, 49% RCTs), with 19% of included studies reporting subgroup analyses across sex, 9% across race/ethnicity/culture, and 4% across socioeconomic status. No subgroup analyses were reported for place of residence, occupation, religion, education, or social capital. One hundred and forty-one trials (71%) discussed the applicability of their results to one or more socially disadvantaged populations (68% of CRT, 73% of RCT).

Discussion

In this set of trials, selected for their relevance to health equity, data that were disaggregated for socially disadvantaged populations were rarely reported. We found that even when the data are available, opportunities to analyze health-equity considerations are frequently missed. The recently published equity extension of the Consolidated Reporting Standards for Randomized Trials (CONSORT-Equity) may help improve delineation of hypotheses related to socially disadvantaged populations, and transparency and completeness of reporting of health-equity considerations in RCTs. This study can serve as a baseline assessment of the reporting of equity considerations.

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.

Reporting and analyses of sex/gender and race/ethnicity in randomized controlled trials of interventions published in the highest-ranking anesthesiology journals

Aim: We assessed reporting of data on sex/gender and race/ethnicity in randomized controlled trials of interventions published in the highest-ranking anesthesiology journals from 2014 to 2017. Methods: We extracted data regarding terminology for sex/gender, proportion of participants according to the race/gender and race/ethnicity, and results shown for the race/gender and race/ethnicity. Results: Among the analyzed 732 trials, few stratified allocation of participants on the basis of sex/gender and race/ethnicity, few reported results for sex/gender or race/ethnicity and the outcomes reported may be influenced by one or both. Conclusion: In conclusion, outcomes of anesthesiology trials could be vulnerable to an important and avoidable source of bias; trialists need to pay more attention to sex and race/ethnicity when designing and reporting their studies.

Is there a difference in the immune response, efficacy, effectiveness and safety of seasonal influenza vaccine in males and females? - A systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Seasonal influenza is an important cause of morbidity and mortality, despite being vaccine-preventable. Sex factors (genes and hormones) seem to impact individuals' susceptibility to infectious diseases and their response to vaccination. However, most vaccine studies do not explicitly assess sex differences in vaccine response, but rather adjust for sex.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review to analyze immunogenicity, efficacy, effectiveness and/or safety of seasonal influenza vaccine data stratified by sex. We searched PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science and clinicaltrials.gov for observational studies and phase III/IV trials from January 1990 to June 2018, published in English or French. Two reviewers independently screened all references, then proceeded to data extraction and quality assessment using the Cochrane tools (RoB and ROBINS-I) on included studies.

RESULTS

Of the 5,745 citations retrieved, 46 studies were included in the SR. Overall, 18 studies assessed immunogenicity, 1 estimated efficacy, 6 measured effectiveness and 25 evaluated safety of seasonal influenza vaccine in females and males (four studies reported on two sex-stratified outcomes concomitantly).

CONCLUSION

No clear conclusion could be drawn regarding the effect of sex on the immunogenicity and effectiveness of seasonal influenza vaccine, but higher rates of adverse events following immunization (AEFIs) were reported in females. The heterogeneity of data and studies' low quality prevented us from conducting a meta-analysis. There is a need to emphasize on the appropriate use of the terms sex and gender in biomedical research. Evidence of higher quality is needed to better understand sex differences in response to influenza vaccine.

Systematic Review of Gender Bias in the Clinical Trials of New Long-Acting Antipsychotic Drugs

PURPOSE/BACKGROUND

This article evaluates gender bias in the published clinical trials of new long-acting antipsychotics.

METHODS/PROCEDURES

We conducted a review of controlled clinical trials of the new prolonged-release antipsychotics (aripiprazole, risperidone, or paliperidone) for the treatment of schizophrenia published in MEDLINE over the last 10 years and available in full text in English. The study followed the corresponding international recommendations.

RESULTS

We identified 132 trials, and of these, 40 met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. We found that only 36.41% of the total patients were women. The separate analysis of the main variable between the subpopulations of men and women was carried out in only 6 of the 40 works included. In contrast, in 15 trials, this analysis was performed on secondary variables, generally related to safety. Only 3 of the 40 trials discussed the results separately according to sex.

CONCLUSIONS

The clinical trials of long-acting atypical antipsychotic drugs show a far-from-negligible gender bias. Women are underrepresented, and the main and secondary variables are not analyzed separately according to gender. This is despite international recommendations establishing these criteria as part of a package of minimum requirements for meeting scientific validity and making results apt to extrapolate to the general population of patients.

Women in clinical trials: a review of policy development and health equity in the Canadian context

Health equity in pharmaceutical research is concerned with creating equal opportunities for men and women to partake in clinical trials. Equitable representation is imperative for determining the safety, effectiveness, and tolerance of drugs for all consumers. Historically, women have been excluded from participating in clinical research leading to a lack of knowledge regarding drug effects and their consequences. This paper examines the changes made since the implementation of Canadian policies on the representation of women in clinical trials, the analysis of sex and gender, as well as the discourses that are prominent among researchers. A feminist ethics framework is used to examine the structures that endeavor to elucidate women's involvement in trials, as experienced under extensive patriarchal history. Scholarly literature and Canadian government policy documents are used to explore the development of clinical trials as pertaining to sex and gender. Findings suggest that women continue to be underrepresented or excluded from important research, highlighting ongoing ethical and justice concerns. Improvement recommendations for policies are outlined.

The Effect of Aerobic Exercise on White Matter Hyperintensity Progression May Vary by Sex

Cette étude a exploré l’efficacité de l’entraînement aérobie (EA) pour atténuer la progression de l’hyperintensité de la matière blanche (HMB) et les différences liées au sexe pour cette intervention. Un essai contrôlé randomisé a été mené pour évaluer l’effet de l’EA sur la cognition de personnes ayant un déficit cognitif d’origine vasculaire. Les participants ont été répartis aléatoirement entre deux groupes : 6 mois d’EA ou soins standards (groupe contrôle). Dans un sous-groupe de participants, l’imagerie par résonance magnétique a été utilisée pour quantifier le volume affecté par la HMB. Un modèle d’analyse de la covariance a permis de mettre en évidence une interaction sexe x groupe significative (p = 0,03). En effet, les femmes du groupe EA ont démontré une plus grande progression de l’hyperintensité de la matière blanche que les femmes du groupe contrôle (p = 0,05) pendant la durée de cette étude (6 mois). Chez les hommes, aucune différence n’a été observée entre les deux groupes (p = 0,31). Dans le groupe EA, les hommes ont montré une progression significativement moindre de la HMB, comparativement aux femmes (p = 0,01) après 6 mois. Ainsi, les effets de l’EA sur la progression de la HMB pourraient varier selon le sexe, et l’EA pourrait freiner la progression de la HMB chez les hommes, mais non chez les femmes.

Beyond sex and gender difference in funding and reporting of health research

BACKGROUND

Understanding sex and gender in health research can improve the quality of scholarship and enhance health outcomes. Funding agencies and academic journals are two key gatekeepers of knowledge production and dissemination, including whether and how sex/gender is incorporated into health research. Though attention has been paid to key issues and practices in accounting for sex/gender in health funding agencies and academic journals, to date, there has been no systematic analysis documenting whether and how agencies and journals require attention to sex/gender, what conceptual explanations and practical guidance are given for such inclusion, and whether existing practices reflect the reality that sex/gender cannot be separated from other axes of inequality.

METHODS

Our research systematically examines official statements about sex/gender inclusion from 45 national-level funding agencies that fund health research across 36 countries (covering the regions of the EU and associated countries, North America, and Australia) and from ten top-ranking general health (the top five in "science" and the top five in "social science") and ten sex- and/or gender-related health journals. We explore the extent to which agencies and journals require inclusion of sex/gender considerations and to what extent existing strategies reflect state of the art understandings of sex/gender, including intersectional perspectives.

RESULTS

The research highlights the following: (a) there is no consistency in whether sex/gender are mentioned in funding and publishing guidelines; (b) there is wide variation in how sex/gender are conceptualized and how researchers are asked to address the inclusion/exclusion of sex/gender in research; (c) funding agencies tend to prioritize male/female equality in research teams and funding outcomes over considerations of sex/gender in research content and knowledge production; and (d) with very few exceptions, agency and journal criteria fail to recognize the complexity of sex/gender, including the intersection of sex/gender with other key factors that shape health.

CONCLUSIONS

The conceptualization and integration of sex/gender needs to better capture the interacting and complex factors that shape health-an imperative that can be informed by an intersectional approach. This can strengthen current efforts to advance scientific excellence in the production and reporting of research. We provide recommendations and supporting questions to strengthen consideration of sex/gender in policies and practices of health journals and funding agencies.

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

BACKGROUND

The importance of sex and gender considerations in research is being increasingly recognized. Evidence indicates that sex and gender can influence intervention effectiveness. We assessed the extent to which sex/gender is reported and analyzed in Campbell and Cochrane systematic reviews.

METHODS

We screened all the systematic reviews in the Campbell Library (n = 137) and a sample of systematic reviews from 2016 to 2017 in the Cochrane Library (n = 674). We documented the frequency of sex/gender terms used in each section of the reviews.

RESULTS

We excluded 5 Cochrane reviews because they were withdrawn or published and updated within the same time period as well as 4 Campbell reviews and 114 Cochrane reviews which only included studies focused on a single sex. Our analysis includes 133 Campbell reviews and 555 Cochrane reviews. We assessed reporting of sex/gender considerations for each section of the systematic review (Abstract, Background, Methods, Results, Discussion). In the methods section, 83% of Cochrane reviews (95% CI 80-86%) and 51% of Campbell reviews (95% CI 42-59%) reported on sex/gender. In the results section, less than 30% of reviews reported on sex/gender. Of these, 37% (95% CI 29-45%) of Campbell and 75% (95% CI 68-82%) of Cochrane reviews provided a descriptive report of sex/gender and 63% (95% CI 55-71%) of Campbell reviews and 25% (95% CI 18-32%) of Cochrane reviews reported analytic approaches for exploring sex/gender, such as subgroup analyses, exploring heterogeneity, or presenting disaggregated data by sex/gender.

CONCLUSION

Our study indicates that sex/gender reporting in Campbell and Cochrane reviews is inadequate.

Research Integrity and Peer Review-past highlights and future directions

In May 2016, we launched Research Integrity and Peer Review, an international, open access journal with fully open peer review (reviewers are identified on their reports and named reports are published alongside the article) to provide a home for research on research and publication ethics, research reporting, and research on peer review. As the journal enters its third year, we reflect on recent events and highlights for the journal and explore how the journal is faring in terms of gender and diversity in peer review. We also share the particular interests of our Editors-in-Chief regarding models of peer review, reporting quality, common research integrity issues that arise during the publishing process, and how people interact with the published literature. We continue to encourage further research into peer review, research and publication ethics and research reporting, as we believe that all new initiatives should be evidence-based. We also remain open to constructive discussions of the developments in the field that offer new solutions.