Cargando…
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....
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2018
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6090880/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30068380 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13643-018-0778-6 |
_version_ | 1783347280610328576 |
---|---|
author | Petkovic, Jennifer Trawin, Jessica Dewidar, Omar Yoganathan, Manosila Tugwell, Peter Welch, Vivian |
author_facet | Petkovic, Jennifer Trawin, Jessica Dewidar, Omar Yoganathan, Manosila Tugwell, Peter Welch, Vivian |
author_sort | Petkovic, Jennifer |
collection | PubMed |
description | 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 RESULTS: We excluded 5 Cochrane reviews because they were withdrawn or published and updated within the same time period as well as 4 Campbell reviews and 114 Cochrane reviews which only included studies focused on a single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. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6090880 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2018 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-60908802018-08-17 Sex/gender reporting and analysis in Campbell and Cochrane systematic reviews: a cross-sectional methods study Petkovic, Jennifer Trawin, Jessica Dewidar, Omar Yoganathan, Manosila Tugwell, Peter Welch, Vivian Syst Rev Research 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. BioMed Central 2018-08-02 /pmc/articles/PMC6090880/ /pubmed/30068380 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13643-018-0778-6 Text en © The Author(s). 2018 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. |
spellingShingle | Research Petkovic, Jennifer Trawin, Jessica Dewidar, Omar Yoganathan, Manosila Tugwell, Peter Welch, Vivian Sex/gender reporting and analysis in Campbell and Cochrane systematic reviews: a cross-sectional methods study |
title | Sex/gender reporting and analysis in Campbell and Cochrane systematic reviews: a cross-sectional methods study |
title_full | Sex/gender reporting and analysis in Campbell and Cochrane systematic reviews: a cross-sectional methods study |
title_fullStr | Sex/gender reporting and analysis in Campbell and Cochrane systematic reviews: a cross-sectional methods study |
title_full_unstemmed | Sex/gender reporting and analysis in Campbell and Cochrane systematic reviews: a cross-sectional methods study |
title_short | Sex/gender reporting and analysis in Campbell and Cochrane systematic reviews: a cross-sectional methods study |
title_sort | sex/gender reporting and analysis in campbell and cochrane systematic reviews: a cross-sectional methods study |
topic | Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6090880/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30068380 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13643-018-0778-6 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT petkovicjennifer sexgenderreportingandanalysisincampbellandcochranesystematicreviewsacrosssectionalmethodsstudy AT trawinjessica sexgenderreportingandanalysisincampbellandcochranesystematicreviewsacrosssectionalmethodsstudy AT dewidaromar sexgenderreportingandanalysisincampbellandcochranesystematicreviewsacrosssectionalmethodsstudy AT yoganathanmanosila sexgenderreportingandanalysisincampbellandcochranesystematicreviewsacrosssectionalmethodsstudy AT tugwellpeter sexgenderreportingandanalysisincampbellandcochranesystematicreviewsacrosssectionalmethodsstudy AT welchvivian sexgenderreportingandanalysisincampbellandcochranesystematicreviewsacrosssectionalmethodsstudy |