Women's Knees Are Not Gender-Neutral: A Global Scoping Review of Equity, Representation, and Context in Knee Osteoarthritis Research and Evidence.

IF 2 4区 医学 Q2 RHEUMATOLOGY
Emmanuel Okon Enang, Ezra Onyedikachi Madu, Minha Awan
{"title":"Women's Knees Are Not Gender-Neutral: A Global Scoping Review of Equity, Representation, and Context in Knee Osteoarthritis Research and Evidence.","authors":"Emmanuel Okon Enang, Ezra Onyedikachi Madu, Minha Awan","doi":"10.1111/1756-185x.70657","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Women bear a disproportionate burden of knee osteoarthritis (KOA), yet global research systematically underrepresents sex-specific and context-sensitive analyses, limiting precision care and equitable interventions. We conducted a scoping review following PRISMA-ScR guidelines, systematically mapping studies on KOA in adults from 2000 to 2024 across PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library. A predefined, version-controlled protocol was maintained with timestamped revisions and an independent audit to ensure methodological transparency. Dual independent screening, data extraction, and coding achieved high reliability (Cohen's κ = 0.87). A validated weighted gap scoring system assessed four equity domains: sex-disaggregated analysis, women's representation, contextual reporting, and geographic diversity. Integrated descriptive mapping and cross-tabulation quantified structural evidence gaps. Gray literature and non-English studies were excluded, acknowledging potential underrepresentation of low- and middle-income country (LMIC) data. Among 287 included studies, women were represented in 91%, yet only 22% were women-only cohorts, with high-income countries 2.4× more likely to conduct women-focused research than LMICs (χ<sup>2</sup> = 29.4, p < 0.001). Sex-disaggregated analyses were reported in 38% of mixed-sex studies, with profound neglect of psychosocial, preventive, and mechanistic outcomes. Intersectional analyses combining age, socioeconomic status, and context were extremely rare. Weighted gap scores highlighted very high deficiencies in SES, education, occupation, and LMIC representation, with minimal improvement over 24 years. KOA's evidence base does not merely underrepresent women; it systematically fails to generate clinically validated knowledge for them. As a result, interventions are routinely applied without clear evidence of the effectiveness across the population most affected, without mandatory sex-aggregated, mechanistic, and context-specific research.</p>","PeriodicalId":14330,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Rheumatic Diseases","volume":"29 5","pages":"e70657"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2026-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Rheumatic Diseases","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1756-185x.70657","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"RHEUMATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Women bear a disproportionate burden of knee osteoarthritis (KOA), yet global research systematically underrepresents sex-specific and context-sensitive analyses, limiting precision care and equitable interventions. We conducted a scoping review following PRISMA-ScR guidelines, systematically mapping studies on KOA in adults from 2000 to 2024 across PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library. A predefined, version-controlled protocol was maintained with timestamped revisions and an independent audit to ensure methodological transparency. Dual independent screening, data extraction, and coding achieved high reliability (Cohen's κ = 0.87). A validated weighted gap scoring system assessed four equity domains: sex-disaggregated analysis, women's representation, contextual reporting, and geographic diversity. Integrated descriptive mapping and cross-tabulation quantified structural evidence gaps. Gray literature and non-English studies were excluded, acknowledging potential underrepresentation of low- and middle-income country (LMIC) data. Among 287 included studies, women were represented in 91%, yet only 22% were women-only cohorts, with high-income countries 2.4× more likely to conduct women-focused research than LMICs (χ2 = 29.4, p < 0.001). Sex-disaggregated analyses were reported in 38% of mixed-sex studies, with profound neglect of psychosocial, preventive, and mechanistic outcomes. Intersectional analyses combining age, socioeconomic status, and context were extremely rare. Weighted gap scores highlighted very high deficiencies in SES, education, occupation, and LMIC representation, with minimal improvement over 24 years. KOA's evidence base does not merely underrepresent women; it systematically fails to generate clinically validated knowledge for them. As a result, interventions are routinely applied without clear evidence of the effectiveness across the population most affected, without mandatory sex-aggregated, mechanistic, and context-specific research.

女性的膝盖不是性别中立的:膝关节骨性关节炎研究和证据的公平性、代表性和背景的全球范围回顾。
女性承受着不成比例的膝盖骨关节炎(KOA)负担,然而全球研究系统地缺乏性别特异性和环境敏感性分析,限制了精确护理和公平干预。我们根据PRISMA-ScR指南进行了范围综述,系统地绘制了2000年至2024年PubMed、Embase、Scopus、Web of Science和Cochrane Library中成人KOA的研究图谱。维护了一个预定义的版本控制协议,带有时间戳的修订和独立审计,以确保方法的透明度。双独立筛选、数据提取、编码可靠性高(Cohen’s κ = 0.87)。一个经过验证的加权差距评分系统评估了四个平等领域:性别分类分析、女性代表、上下文报告和地理多样性。综合描述映射和交叉表量化结构证据差距。灰色文献和非英语研究被排除在外,承认低收入和中等收入国家(LMIC)数据可能代表性不足。在纳入的287项研究中,91%为女性,但只有22%为女性队列,高收入国家开展以女性为重点的研究的可能性是中低收入国家的2.4倍(χ2 = 29.4, p . 599)
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
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
4.00%
发文量
362
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Rheumatic Diseases (formerly APLAR Journal of Rheumatology) is the official journal of the Asia Pacific League of Associations for Rheumatology. The Journal accepts original articles on clinical or experimental research pertinent to the rheumatic diseases, work on connective tissue diseases and other immune and allergic disorders. The acceptance criteria for all papers are the quality and originality of the research and its significance to our readership. Except where otherwise stated, manuscripts are peer reviewed by two anonymous reviewers and the Editor.
×
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
小红书