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

被引:26
|
作者
Petkovic, Jennifer [1 ]
Trawin, Jessica [1 ]
Dewidar, Omar [1 ]
Yoganathan, Manosila [1 ]
Tugwell, Peter [2 ,3 ,4 ]
Welch, Vivian [1 ]
机构
[1] Bruyere Res Inst, 85 Primrose Ave, Ottawa, ON K1N 6M1, Canada
[2] Ottawa Hosp, Res Inst, Ctr Practice Changing Res, Mailbox 201B,Gen Campus,501 Smyth Rd, Ottawa, ON K1H 8L6, Canada
[3] Ottawa Hosp, Res Inst, Clin Epidemiol Program, Ottawa, ON K1Y 4E9, Canada
[4] Univ Ottawa, Sch Epidemiol & Publ Hlth, Ottawa, ON K1H 8M5, Canada
基金
加拿大健康研究院;
关键词
Systematic reviews; Sex and gender; Health equity; HEALTH; POLICY; SEX;
D O I
10.1186/s13643-018-0778-6
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
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 Results: We excluded 5 Cochrane reviews because they were withdrawn or published and updated within the same time period as well as 4 Campbell reviews and 114 Cochrane reviews which only included studies focused on a single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.
引用
收藏
页数:11
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Sex/gender reporting and analysis in Campbell and Cochrane systematic reviews: a cross-sectional methods study
    Jennifer Petkovic
    Jessica Trawin
    Omar Dewidar
    Manosila Yoganathan
    Peter Tugwell
    Vivian Welch
    [J]. Systematic Reviews, 7
  • [2] Lack of sex-related analysis and reporting in Cochrane Reviews: a cross-sectional study
    Antequera, Alba
    Ana Cuadrado-Conde, M.
    Roy-Vallejo, Emilia
    Montoya-Martinez, Maria
    Leon-Garcia, Montserrat
    Madrid-Pascual, Olaya
    Calderon-Larranaga, Sara
    [J]. SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS, 2022, 11 (01)
  • [3] Lack of sex-related analysis and reporting in Cochrane Reviews: a cross-sectional study
    Alba Antequera
    M. Ana Cuadrado-Conde
    Emilia Roy-Vallejo
    María Montoya-Martínez
    Montserrat León-García
    Olaya Madrid-Pascual
    Sara Calderón-Larrañaga
    [J]. Systematic Reviews, 11
  • [4] Outcome reporting bias in Cochrane systematic reviews: a cross-sectional analysis
    Shah, Kieran
    Egan, Gregory
    Huan, Lawrence
    Kirkham, Jamie
    Reid, Emma
    Tejani, Aaron M.
    [J]. BMJ OPEN, 2020, 10 (03):
  • [5] Conduct and reporting of citation searching in Cochrane systematic reviews: A cross-sectional study
    Briscoe, Simon
    Bethel, Alison
    Rogers, Morwenna
    [J]. RESEARCH SYNTHESIS METHODS, 2020, 11 (02) : 169 - 180
  • [6] Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of non-Cochrane updates of systematic reviews: A cross-sectional study
    Rombey, Tanja
    Lochner, Valerie
    Puljak, Livia
    Koensgen, Nadja
    Mathes, Tim
    Pieper, Dawid
    [J]. RESEARCH SYNTHESIS METHODS, 2020, 11 (03) : 471 - 483
  • [7] Reporting of sex and gender in randomized controlled trials in Canada: a cross-sectional methods study
    V. Welch
    M. Doull
    M. Yoganathan
    J. Jull
    M. Boscoe
    S. E. Coen
    Z. Marshall
    J. Pardo Pardo
    A. Pederson
    J. Petkovic
    L. Puil
    L. Quinlan
    B. Shea
    T. Rader
    V. Runnels
    S. Tudiver
    [J]. Research Integrity and Peer Review, 2 (1)
  • [8] REPORTING QUALITY OF DRUG SAFETY SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS: A CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY
    Li, L.
    Xu, C.
    Deng, K.
    Zhou, X.
    Sun, X.
    [J]. VALUE IN HEALTH, 2018, 21 : S85 - S85
  • [9] Converting systematic reviews to Cochrane format: a cross-sectional survey of Australian authors of systematic reviews
    Janet H Piehl
    Sally Green
    Steve McDonald
    [J]. BMC Health Services Research, 3
  • [10] Converting systematic reviews to Cochrane format: a cross-sectional survey of Australian authors of systematic reviews
    Piehl, JH
    Green, S
    McDonald, S
    [J]. BMC HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH, 2003, 3 (1)