康复治疗桡骨远端骨折随机临床试验的性别报告:一项系统综述。

IF 3.7 2区 医学 Q1 REHABILITATION
Christina Ziebart PT, PhD , Armaghan Dabbagh PT, PhD , Stephanie Reischl PT, PhD , Rochelle Furtado PT, PhD , Joy C. MacDermid PT, PhD
{"title":"康复治疗桡骨远端骨折随机临床试验的性别报告:一项系统综述。","authors":"Christina Ziebart PT, PhD ,&nbsp;Armaghan Dabbagh PT, PhD ,&nbsp;Stephanie Reischl PT, PhD ,&nbsp;Rochelle Furtado PT, PhD ,&nbsp;Joy C. MacDermid PT, PhD","doi":"10.1016/j.apmr.2024.12.023","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><div>To determine the extent to which sex and gender are considered in the design and reporting of distal radius fracture rehabilitation randomized controlled trials (RCTs).</div></div><div><h3>Data Sources</h3><div>PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and Pedro databases were searched in March 2022, and an updated search was conducted in July 2023.</div></div><div><h3>Study Selection</h3><div>All RCTs with a rehabilitation intervention and any comparison were included.</div></div><div><h3>Data Extraction</h3><div>We extracted information on the study characteristics and sex and gender reporting in the articles. We extracted whether the studies complied with the sex and gender equity in research (SAGER) guidelines and a reporting tool for sex and gender.</div></div><div><h3>Data Synthesis</h3><div>A total of 77 studies were included in this review. All studies were published between 1987 and 2021. Two were in children, and the rest were in adults. This systematic review found that sex and gender were adequately considered in only 6 of the 77 RCTs investigating rehabilitation interventions after distal radius fracture. Three of those studies were published before the SAGER guidelines were published in 2016, and 3 were published after 2016.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Overall, sex and gender were inadequately defined, and poorly addressed in the study design, conduct, and interpretation. Unfortunately, there was no evidence of improvement after 2016 when the SAGER guidelines became available.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":8313,"journal":{"name":"Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation","volume":"106 9","pages":"Pages 1402-1421"},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Reporting of Sex and Gender in Randomized Controlled Trials of Rehabilitation Treated Distal Radius Fractures: A Systematic Review\",\"authors\":\"Christina Ziebart PT, PhD ,&nbsp;Armaghan Dabbagh PT, PhD ,&nbsp;Stephanie Reischl PT, PhD ,&nbsp;Rochelle Furtado PT, PhD ,&nbsp;Joy C. MacDermid PT, PhD\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.apmr.2024.12.023\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Objective</h3><div>To determine the extent to which sex and gender are considered in the design and reporting of distal radius fracture rehabilitation randomized controlled trials (RCTs).</div></div><div><h3>Data Sources</h3><div>PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and Pedro databases were searched in March 2022, and an updated search was conducted in July 2023.</div></div><div><h3>Study Selection</h3><div>All RCTs with a rehabilitation intervention and any comparison were included.</div></div><div><h3>Data Extraction</h3><div>We extracted information on the study characteristics and sex and gender reporting in the articles. We extracted whether the studies complied with the sex and gender equity in research (SAGER) guidelines and a reporting tool for sex and gender.</div></div><div><h3>Data Synthesis</h3><div>A total of 77 studies were included in this review. All studies were published between 1987 and 2021. Two were in children, and the rest were in adults. This systematic review found that sex and gender were adequately considered in only 6 of the 77 RCTs investigating rehabilitation interventions after distal radius fracture. Three of those studies were published before the SAGER guidelines were published in 2016, and 3 were published after 2016.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Overall, sex and gender were inadequately defined, and poorly addressed in the study design, conduct, and interpretation. Unfortunately, there was no evidence of improvement after 2016 when the SAGER guidelines became available.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8313,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation\",\"volume\":\"106 9\",\"pages\":\"Pages 1402-1421\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0003999325005258\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"REHABILITATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0003999325005258","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:本系统综述的目的是确定在DRF康复随机对照试验的设计和报告中考虑性别和性别的程度。数据来源:于2022年3月检索PubMed、Embase、CINAHL和Pedro数据库,并于2023年7月更新检索。研究选择:纳入所有有康复干预和任何比较的随机对照试验。数据提取:我们提取了研究特征和文章中性别和性别报道的信息。我们提取了这些研究是否符合SAGER指南和性别报告工具。资料综合:本综述共纳入77项研究。所有研究都发表于1987年至2021年之间。其中两例为儿童,其余为成人。本系统综述发现,在调查drf后康复干预的77项随机对照试验中,只有6项充分考虑了性别和社会性别。其中三项研究是在2016年SAGER指南发布之前发表的,另外三项是在2016年之后发表的。结论:总体而言,性别和社会性别定义不充分,在研究设计、实施和解释中处理不当。不幸的是,2016年SAGER指南发布后,没有任何改善的证据。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Reporting of Sex and Gender in Randomized Controlled Trials of Rehabilitation Treated Distal Radius Fractures: A Systematic Review

Objective

To determine the extent to which sex and gender are considered in the design and reporting of distal radius fracture rehabilitation randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

Data Sources

PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and Pedro databases were searched in March 2022, and an updated search was conducted in July 2023.

Study Selection

All RCTs with a rehabilitation intervention and any comparison were included.

Data Extraction

We extracted information on the study characteristics and sex and gender reporting in the articles. We extracted whether the studies complied with the sex and gender equity in research (SAGER) guidelines and a reporting tool for sex and gender.

Data Synthesis

A total of 77 studies were included in this review. All studies were published between 1987 and 2021. Two were in children, and the rest were in adults. This systematic review found that sex and gender were adequately considered in only 6 of the 77 RCTs investigating rehabilitation interventions after distal radius fracture. Three of those studies were published before the SAGER guidelines were published in 2016, and 3 were published after 2016.

Conclusions

Overall, sex and gender were inadequately defined, and poorly addressed in the study design, conduct, and interpretation. Unfortunately, there was no evidence of improvement after 2016 when the SAGER guidelines became available.
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
CiteScore
6.20
自引率
4.70%
发文量
495
审稿时长
38 days
期刊介绍: The Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation publishes original, peer-reviewed research and clinical reports on important trends and developments in physical medicine and rehabilitation and related fields. This international journal brings researchers and clinicians authoritative information on the therapeutic utilization of physical, behavioral and pharmaceutical agents in providing comprehensive care for individuals with chronic illness and disabilities. Archives began publication in 1920, publishes monthly, and is the official journal of the American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine. Its papers are cited more often than any other rehabilitation journal.
×
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