ARDS Studies in Critical Care Journals: How Representative Are the Patients Studied?

IF 1.8 Q3 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE
Critical Care Research and Practice Pub Date : 2025-09-10 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1155/ccrp/4060643
Jennifer Varallo, Tarek Nahle, Peter Galiano, Ricardo Jaime Orozco, Christopher Ambrogi, Adam Green, Jean-Sebastien Rachoin
{"title":"ARDS Studies in Critical Care Journals: How Representative Are the Patients Studied?","authors":"Jennifer Varallo, Tarek Nahle, Peter Galiano, Ricardo Jaime Orozco, Christopher Ambrogi, Adam Green, Jean-Sebastien Rachoin","doi":"10.1155/ccrp/4060643","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Purpose:</b> Implicit bias in medicine is widespread, with minority populations historically underrepresented in research. Studies have shown racial and ethnic disparities in patient outcomes, including in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). This study examines the representation of minority patients in ARDS research in the USA. <b>Methods:</b> We examined the 1000 most cited ARDS studies from 2011 to 2021 in the top five critical care journals: AJRC, CHEST, Critical Care, CCM, and ICM. <b>Results:</b> 211 met the inclusion criteria, with 90 providing racial and ethnic demographic information for analysis. These included 17 in AJRC, 36 in CCM, 18 in CHEST, 11 in CC, and 8 in ICM. The average number of citations was 53 (±63). Publications peaked from 2015 to 2017 (15/year), while 2021 had the fewest. The mean patient count was 15,168, including 42 prospective, 29 randomized controlled, and 19 retrospective studies. Eighty-eight studies reported an average patient age of 53 years (±6), and 72% (±15%) of patients were White. Thirty-five studies reported only White patient demographics, while 53 included Black patients, 29 discussed Hispanic patients, 21 mentioned Asian patients. Most studies reported an average of 43% female participants, with no correlations found regarding White patient numbers, publication year, citations, or journals. <b>Conclusion:</b> A substantial number of highly cited studies about ARDS published in prominent critical care journals did not have detailed information regarding the racial composition of the patient population, and a large majority included overwhelmingly White patients and a preponderance of male gender patients.</p>","PeriodicalId":46583,"journal":{"name":"Critical Care Research and Practice","volume":"2025 ","pages":"4060643"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12443510/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Critical Care Research and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1155/ccrp/4060643","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: Implicit bias in medicine is widespread, with minority populations historically underrepresented in research. Studies have shown racial and ethnic disparities in patient outcomes, including in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). This study examines the representation of minority patients in ARDS research in the USA. Methods: We examined the 1000 most cited ARDS studies from 2011 to 2021 in the top five critical care journals: AJRC, CHEST, Critical Care, CCM, and ICM. Results: 211 met the inclusion criteria, with 90 providing racial and ethnic demographic information for analysis. These included 17 in AJRC, 36 in CCM, 18 in CHEST, 11 in CC, and 8 in ICM. The average number of citations was 53 (±63). Publications peaked from 2015 to 2017 (15/year), while 2021 had the fewest. The mean patient count was 15,168, including 42 prospective, 29 randomized controlled, and 19 retrospective studies. Eighty-eight studies reported an average patient age of 53 years (±6), and 72% (±15%) of patients were White. Thirty-five studies reported only White patient demographics, while 53 included Black patients, 29 discussed Hispanic patients, 21 mentioned Asian patients. Most studies reported an average of 43% female participants, with no correlations found regarding White patient numbers, publication year, citations, or journals. Conclusion: A substantial number of highly cited studies about ARDS published in prominent critical care journals did not have detailed information regarding the racial composition of the patient population, and a large majority included overwhelmingly White patients and a preponderance of male gender patients.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

重症监护期刊上的ARDS研究:研究患者的代表性如何?
目的:医学中的内隐偏见是普遍存在的,历史上少数群体在研究中的代表性不足。研究表明,包括急性呼吸窘迫综合征(ARDS)在内的患者预后存在种族和民族差异。本研究考察了美国ARDS研究中少数民族患者的代表性。方法:我们检查了2011年至2021年在五大重症期刊(AJRC、CHEST、critical care、CCM和ICM)中被引用最多的1000篇ARDS研究。结果:211例符合纳入标准,90例提供人种人口统计信息供分析。其中AJRC 17例,CCM 36例,CHEST 18例,CC 11例,ICM 8例。平均被引53次(±63次)。论文发表量在2015年至2017年达到顶峰(15篇/年),而2021年最少。平均患者数为15,168例,包括42项前瞻性研究,29项随机对照研究和19项回顾性研究。88项研究报告患者平均年龄为53岁(±6岁),72%(±15%)的患者为白人。35项研究仅报道了白人患者的统计数据,53项研究包括黑人患者,29项研究讨论了西班牙裔患者,21项研究提到了亚洲患者。大多数研究报告平均43%的女性参与者,与白人患者数量、发表年份、引文或期刊没有相关性。结论:在著名的重症监护期刊上发表的大量高引用的关于ARDS的研究没有关于患者人群种族组成的详细信息,并且绝大多数包括压倒性的白人患者和男性患者。
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
Critical Care Research and Practice
Critical Care Research and Practice CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE-
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
34
审稿时长
14 weeks
×
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