Sex and gender considerations in randomized controlled trials in critical care nephrology: a meta-epidemiologic study.

IF 7 1区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Nuttha Lumlertgul, Anyarin Wannakittirat, Janice Y Kung, Nattachai Srisawat, David Collister, Emily J See, Neesh Pannu, Ravindra L Mehta, Danielle E Soranno, Marlies Ostermann, Sean M Bagshaw
{"title":"Sex and gender considerations in randomized controlled trials in critical care nephrology: a meta-epidemiologic study.","authors":"Nuttha Lumlertgul, Anyarin Wannakittirat, Janice Y Kung, Nattachai Srisawat, David Collister, Emily J See, Neesh Pannu, Ravindra L Mehta, Danielle E Soranno, Marlies Ostermann, Sean M Bagshaw","doi":"10.1186/s12916-025-04202-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>How sex and gender are considered in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in critical care nephrology is unclear. We aimed to perform a meta-epidemiologic study to describe the representation, sex and gender reporting, and sex- and gender-based analyses (SGBA) in high-impact RCTs in critical care nephrology.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched the Web of Science Core Collection for critical care nephrology papers from 2000 to 2024. We included trials published in high-impact journals in general medicine, pediatrics, critical care, and nephrology. The main outcome was the proportion of female/woman participants enrolled and the association with trial characteristics, findings, and women authorship. We estimated the participation-to-prevalence ratio (PPR) to evaluate the representativeness of females within identified RCTs and selected case-mix and disease populations. Sex and gender reporting and SGBA were investigated.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 117 RCTs, including 106,057 participants, were included. Sex (54.7%), gender (26.5%), both (2.6%), or none (16.2%) terminology were used for reporting. Male/female (82.1%), men/women (11.1%), both (4.3%), boys/girls (0.9%) and none (1.7%) were used as descriptors. Of the 115 RCTs with available sex/gender data, the median proportion of female/women participants was 35.4% (interquartile range (IQR) 31.2%-40.8%). Pediatric age group and process of care as an intervention were independently associated with the proportion of female/women participants. The median PPR was 0.89 (IQR 0.8-1.06), except in major surgery, for which PPR was 0.67 (IQR 0.29-0.73). Twelve (10.9%) and 49 (41.9%) studies used sex and/or gender as inclusion and exclusion criteria, respectively; 5 (4.3%) studies used sex/gender-stratified randomization; and 35 (29.9%) studies performed SGBA. RCTs with pregnancy, lactation, or women of childbearing age as exclusion criteria had a lower enrollment of female/women participants than RCTs that did not (33.6% vs. 36.8%, P = 0.04). Exclusion criteria of pregnancy, lactation, or childbearing age were considered strongly justified, potentially justified, and poorly justified in 36.1%, 14.9%, and 48.9%, respectively. There were no changes in the representation of females/women and SGBA across identified RCTs over the search range.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Females/women are less frequently represented in critical care nephrology RCTs. Significant gaps exist in sex- and gender-specific eligibility criteria, reporting, and analysis.</p>","PeriodicalId":9188,"journal":{"name":"BMC Medicine","volume":"23 1","pages":"386"},"PeriodicalIF":7.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12220064/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-025-04202-y","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: How sex and gender are considered in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in critical care nephrology is unclear. We aimed to perform a meta-epidemiologic study to describe the representation, sex and gender reporting, and sex- and gender-based analyses (SGBA) in high-impact RCTs in critical care nephrology.

Methods: We searched the Web of Science Core Collection for critical care nephrology papers from 2000 to 2024. We included trials published in high-impact journals in general medicine, pediatrics, critical care, and nephrology. The main outcome was the proportion of female/woman participants enrolled and the association with trial characteristics, findings, and women authorship. We estimated the participation-to-prevalence ratio (PPR) to evaluate the representativeness of females within identified RCTs and selected case-mix and disease populations. Sex and gender reporting and SGBA were investigated.

Results: A total of 117 RCTs, including 106,057 participants, were included. Sex (54.7%), gender (26.5%), both (2.6%), or none (16.2%) terminology were used for reporting. Male/female (82.1%), men/women (11.1%), both (4.3%), boys/girls (0.9%) and none (1.7%) were used as descriptors. Of the 115 RCTs with available sex/gender data, the median proportion of female/women participants was 35.4% (interquartile range (IQR) 31.2%-40.8%). Pediatric age group and process of care as an intervention were independently associated with the proportion of female/women participants. The median PPR was 0.89 (IQR 0.8-1.06), except in major surgery, for which PPR was 0.67 (IQR 0.29-0.73). Twelve (10.9%) and 49 (41.9%) studies used sex and/or gender as inclusion and exclusion criteria, respectively; 5 (4.3%) studies used sex/gender-stratified randomization; and 35 (29.9%) studies performed SGBA. RCTs with pregnancy, lactation, or women of childbearing age as exclusion criteria had a lower enrollment of female/women participants than RCTs that did not (33.6% vs. 36.8%, P = 0.04). Exclusion criteria of pregnancy, lactation, or childbearing age were considered strongly justified, potentially justified, and poorly justified in 36.1%, 14.9%, and 48.9%, respectively. There were no changes in the representation of females/women and SGBA across identified RCTs over the search range.

Conclusions: Females/women are less frequently represented in critical care nephrology RCTs. Significant gaps exist in sex- and gender-specific eligibility criteria, reporting, and analysis.

危重病肾病学随机对照试验中的性别和性别因素:一项荟萃流行病学研究。
背景:在危重病肾病学的随机对照试验(RCTs)中如何考虑性别和社会性别尚不清楚。我们的目的是进行一项荟萃流行病学研究,以描述重症肾病学中高影响力随机对照试验的代表性、性别和性别报告以及性别和基于性别的分析(SGBA)。方法:检索Web of Science Core Collection 2000 - 2024年重症肾病学论文。我们纳入了在普通医学、儿科学、重症监护和肾脏病学等高影响力期刊上发表的试验。主要结局为入组女性/女性受试者的比例,以及与试验特征、发现和女性作者的关联。我们估计了参与率-患病率(PPR),以评估女性在确定的随机对照试验和选定的病例组合和疾病人群中的代表性。对性与性别报告和SGBA进行了调查。结果:共纳入117项随机对照试验,共纳入106057名受试者。使用性别(54.7%)、性别(26.5%)、两者(2.6%)或无性别(16.2%)术语进行报告。男性/女性(82.1%)、男性/女性(11.1%)、两者(4.3%)、男孩/女孩(0.9%)和无(1.7%)作为描述符。在115项具有可用性别/性别数据的随机对照试验中,女性/女性参与者的中位数比例为35.4%(四分位数间距(IQR) 31.2%-40.8%)。儿童年龄组和作为干预的护理过程与女性参与者的比例独立相关。除大手术外,中位PPR为0.67 (IQR 0.29-0.73), PPR为0.89 (IQR 0.8-1.06)。分别有12项(10.9%)和49项(41.9%)研究使用性别和/或性别作为纳入标准和排除标准;5项(4.3%)研究采用了性别/性别分层随机化;35项(29.9%)研究进行了SGBA。以怀孕、哺乳期或育龄妇女为排除标准的随机对照试验中,女性/女性参与者的入组率低于不以怀孕、哺乳期或育龄妇女为排除标准的随机对照试验(33.6%对36.8%,P = 0.04)。妊娠、哺乳期或育龄的排除标准分别有36.1%、14.9%和48.9%的人认为有充分理由、潜在理由和不充分理由。在整个搜索范围内,在已确定的随机对照试验中,女性/女性和SGBA的代表性没有变化。结论:女性/女性在重症肾病随机对照试验中较少出现。在性别和特定性别的资格标准、报告和分析方面存在显著差距。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
BMC Medicine
BMC Medicine 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
13.10
自引率
1.10%
发文量
435
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: BMC Medicine is an open access, transparent peer-reviewed general medical journal. It is the flagship journal of the BMC series and publishes outstanding and influential research in various areas including clinical practice, translational medicine, medical and health advances, public health, global health, policy, and general topics of interest to the biomedical and sociomedical professional communities. In addition to research articles, the journal also publishes stimulating debates, reviews, unique forum articles, and concise tutorials. All articles published in BMC Medicine are included in various databases such as Biological Abstracts, BIOSIS, CAS, Citebase, Current contents, DOAJ, Embase, MEDLINE, PubMed, Science Citation Index Expanded, OAIster, SCImago, Scopus, SOCOLAR, and Zetoc.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信