使用 "研究与评估指南评估 II "工具评估 2016 至 2020 年麻醉临床实践指南作者和质量的性别差异。

IF 4.6 2区 医学 Q1 ANESTHESIOLOGY
Anesthesia and analgesia Pub Date : 2024-11-01 Epub Date: 2024-05-20 DOI:10.1213/ANE.0000000000006803
Lisa Q Rong, Andrew P Martinez, Mohamed Rahouma, Alexandra J Lopes, Jerry Y Lee, Drew N Wright, Michelle Demetres, Bessie Kachulis, Sinead M O'Shaughnessy
{"title":"使用 \"研究与评估指南评估 II \"工具评估 2016 至 2020 年麻醉临床实践指南作者和质量的性别差异。","authors":"Lisa Q Rong, Andrew P Martinez, Mohamed Rahouma, Alexandra J Lopes, Jerry Y Lee, Drew N Wright, Michelle Demetres, Bessie Kachulis, Sinead M O'Shaughnessy","doi":"10.1213/ANE.0000000000006803","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Women continue to be underrepresented in academic anesthesiology. This study assessed guidelines in anesthesia journals over the past 5 years, evaluating differences in woman-led versus man-led guidelines in terms of author gender, quality, and changes over time. We hypothesized that anesthesia guidelines would be predominately man-led, and that there would be differences in quality between woman-led versus man-led guidelines.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>All clinical practice guidelines published in the top 10 anesthesia journals were identified as per Clarivate Analytics Impact Factor between 2016 and 2020. Fifty-one guidelines were included for author, gender, and quality analysis using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument. Each guideline was assessed across 6 domains and 23 items and given an overall score, overall quality score, and overall rating/recommendation. Stratified and trend analyses were performed for woman-led versus man-led guidelines.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Fifty out of 51 guidelines were included: 1 was excluded due to unidentifiable first-author gender. In total, 255 of 1052 (24%) authors were women, and woman-led guidelines (woman-first author) represented 12 of 50 (24%) overall guidelines. Eighteen percent (9 of 50) of guidelines had all-male authors, and a majority (26 of 50, 52%) had less than one-third of female authors. The overall number and percentage of woman-led guidelines did not change over time. There was a significantly higher percentage of female authors in woman-led versus man-led guidelines, median 39% vs 20% ( P = .012), as well as a significantly higher number of female coauthors in guidelines that were woman-led median 3.5 vs 1.0, P = .049. For quality, there was no significant difference in the overall rating or objective quality of woman- versus man-led guidelines. However, there was a significant increase in the overall rating of all the guidelines over time ( P = .010), driven by the increase in overall rating among man-led guidelines, P = .002. The overall score of guidelines did not increase over time; however, they increased in man-led but not woman-led guidelines. There was no significant correlation between the percentage of female authors per guideline and either overall score or overall rating.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>There is a substantial disparity in the number of women leading and contributing to guidelines which has not improved over time. Woman-led guidelines included more women and a higher percentage of women. There was no difference in quality of guidelines by first-author gender or percentage of female authors. Further systematic and quota-driven sponsorship is needed to promote gender equity, diversity, and inclusion in anesthesia guidelines.</p>","PeriodicalId":7784,"journal":{"name":"Anesthesia and analgesia","volume":" ","pages":"955-964"},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11493532/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Gender Differences in Authorship and Quality of Anesthesia Clinical Practice Guidelines From 2016 to 2020 Using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II Instrument.\",\"authors\":\"Lisa Q Rong, Andrew P Martinez, Mohamed Rahouma, Alexandra J Lopes, Jerry Y Lee, Drew N Wright, Michelle Demetres, Bessie Kachulis, Sinead M O'Shaughnessy\",\"doi\":\"10.1213/ANE.0000000000006803\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Women continue to be underrepresented in academic anesthesiology. This study assessed guidelines in anesthesia journals over the past 5 years, evaluating differences in woman-led versus man-led guidelines in terms of author gender, quality, and changes over time. We hypothesized that anesthesia guidelines would be predominately man-led, and that there would be differences in quality between woman-led versus man-led guidelines.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>All clinical practice guidelines published in the top 10 anesthesia journals were identified as per Clarivate Analytics Impact Factor between 2016 and 2020. Fifty-one guidelines were included for author, gender, and quality analysis using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument. Each guideline was assessed across 6 domains and 23 items and given an overall score, overall quality score, and overall rating/recommendation. Stratified and trend analyses were performed for woman-led versus man-led guidelines.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Fifty out of 51 guidelines were included: 1 was excluded due to unidentifiable first-author gender. In total, 255 of 1052 (24%) authors were women, and woman-led guidelines (woman-first author) represented 12 of 50 (24%) overall guidelines. Eighteen percent (9 of 50) of guidelines had all-male authors, and a majority (26 of 50, 52%) had less than one-third of female authors. The overall number and percentage of woman-led guidelines did not change over time. There was a significantly higher percentage of female authors in woman-led versus man-led guidelines, median 39% vs 20% ( P = .012), as well as a significantly higher number of female coauthors in guidelines that were woman-led median 3.5 vs 1.0, P = .049. For quality, there was no significant difference in the overall rating or objective quality of woman- versus man-led guidelines. However, there was a significant increase in the overall rating of all the guidelines over time ( P = .010), driven by the increase in overall rating among man-led guidelines, P = .002. The overall score of guidelines did not increase over time; however, they increased in man-led but not woman-led guidelines. There was no significant correlation between the percentage of female authors per guideline and either overall score or overall rating.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>There is a substantial disparity in the number of women leading and contributing to guidelines which has not improved over time. Woman-led guidelines included more women and a higher percentage of women. There was no difference in quality of guidelines by first-author gender or percentage of female authors. Further systematic and quota-driven sponsorship is needed to promote gender equity, diversity, and inclusion in anesthesia guidelines.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7784,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Anesthesia and analgesia\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"955-964\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11493532/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Anesthesia and analgesia\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1213/ANE.0000000000006803\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/5/20 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ANESTHESIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Anesthesia and analgesia","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1213/ANE.0000000000006803","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/5/20 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

导言:女性在麻醉学术界的代表性仍然不足。本研究评估了过去五年中麻醉学期刊上的指南,从作者性别、质量和随时间推移的变化等方面评估了女性领导的指南与男性领导的指南之间的差异。我们假设麻醉指南主要由男性主导,而女性主导与男性主导的指南在质量上存在差异:根据 Clarivate Analytics 的影响因子,确定了 2016 年至 2020 年间在排名前 10 位的麻醉期刊上发表的所有临床实践指南。采用研究与评估指南评估(AGREE)II工具对51份指南的作者、性别和质量进行分析。对每份指南进行了 6 个领域 23 个项目的评估,并给出了总分、总体质量分和总体评分/建议。对女性领导与男性领导的指南进行了分层和趋势分析:结果:51 份指南中有 50 份被纳入:结果:51 份指南中有 50 份被纳入:1 份因无法确定第一作者性别而被排除。总计 1052 份指南中有 255 份(24%)的作者为女性,女性主导的指南(女性为第一作者)在 50 份指南中占 12 份(24%)。18%的指南(50 份中的 9 份)的作者全部为男性,大多数指南(50 份中的 26 份,52%)的女性作者比例不足三分之一。随着时间的推移,女性领导的指南总体数量和比例没有变化。女性作者在女性领导的指南中所占比例明显高于男性领导的指南,中位数分别为 39% 和 20% (P = .012),女性共同作者在女性领导的指南中所占比例也明显高于男性领导的指南,中位数分别为 3.5 和 1.0,P = .049。在质量方面,女性领导的指南与男性领导的指南在总体评分或客观质量方面没有明显差异。然而,随着时间的推移,所有指南的总体评分都有了明显的提高(P = .010),其中男性主导指南的总体评分有所提高,P = .002。指导原则的总体评分并没有随着时间的推移而增加;但是,男性主导的指导原则的总体评分有所增加,而女性主导的指导原则的总体评分则没有增加。每份指南的女性作者比例与总体得分或总体评分之间没有明显的相关性:领导和参与指南制定的女性人数差距很大,而且随着时间的推移没有改善。女性领导的指南包括更多的女性和更高比例的女性。根据第一作者的性别或女性作者的比例,指南的质量没有差异。为了促进麻醉指南中的性别平等、多样性和包容性,需要进一步开展系统性和配额驱动的赞助活动。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Gender Differences in Authorship and Quality of Anesthesia Clinical Practice Guidelines From 2016 to 2020 Using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II Instrument.

Introduction: Women continue to be underrepresented in academic anesthesiology. This study assessed guidelines in anesthesia journals over the past 5 years, evaluating differences in woman-led versus man-led guidelines in terms of author gender, quality, and changes over time. We hypothesized that anesthesia guidelines would be predominately man-led, and that there would be differences in quality between woman-led versus man-led guidelines.

Methods: All clinical practice guidelines published in the top 10 anesthesia journals were identified as per Clarivate Analytics Impact Factor between 2016 and 2020. Fifty-one guidelines were included for author, gender, and quality analysis using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument. Each guideline was assessed across 6 domains and 23 items and given an overall score, overall quality score, and overall rating/recommendation. Stratified and trend analyses were performed for woman-led versus man-led guidelines.

Results: Fifty out of 51 guidelines were included: 1 was excluded due to unidentifiable first-author gender. In total, 255 of 1052 (24%) authors were women, and woman-led guidelines (woman-first author) represented 12 of 50 (24%) overall guidelines. Eighteen percent (9 of 50) of guidelines had all-male authors, and a majority (26 of 50, 52%) had less than one-third of female authors. The overall number and percentage of woman-led guidelines did not change over time. There was a significantly higher percentage of female authors in woman-led versus man-led guidelines, median 39% vs 20% ( P = .012), as well as a significantly higher number of female coauthors in guidelines that were woman-led median 3.5 vs 1.0, P = .049. For quality, there was no significant difference in the overall rating or objective quality of woman- versus man-led guidelines. However, there was a significant increase in the overall rating of all the guidelines over time ( P = .010), driven by the increase in overall rating among man-led guidelines, P = .002. The overall score of guidelines did not increase over time; however, they increased in man-led but not woman-led guidelines. There was no significant correlation between the percentage of female authors per guideline and either overall score or overall rating.

Conclusions: There is a substantial disparity in the number of women leading and contributing to guidelines which has not improved over time. Woman-led guidelines included more women and a higher percentage of women. There was no difference in quality of guidelines by first-author gender or percentage of female authors. Further systematic and quota-driven sponsorship is needed to promote gender equity, diversity, and inclusion in anesthesia guidelines.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Anesthesia and analgesia
Anesthesia and analgesia 医学-麻醉学
CiteScore
9.90
自引率
7.00%
发文量
817
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: Anesthesia & Analgesia exists for the benefit of patients under the care of health care professionals engaged in the disciplines broadly related to anesthesiology, perioperative medicine, critical care medicine, and pain medicine. The Journal furthers the care of these patients by reporting the fundamental advances in the science of these clinical disciplines and by documenting the clinical, laboratory, and administrative advances that guide therapy. Anesthesia & Analgesia seeks a balance between definitive clinical and management investigations and outstanding basic scientific reports. The Journal welcomes original manuscripts containing rigorous design and analysis, even if unusual in their approach.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信