The Reporting of Sex and Gender in Randomized Clinical Trials of Rehabilitation Treated Distal Radius Fractures: A systematic review.

IF 3.6 2区 医学 Q1 REHABILITATION Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation Pub Date : 2025-02-21 DOI:10.1016/j.apmr.2024.12.023
Christina Ziebart, Armaghan Dabbagh, Stephanie Reischl, Rochelle Furtado, Joy C MacDermid
{"title":"The Reporting of Sex and Gender in Randomized Clinical Trials of Rehabilitation Treated Distal Radius Fractures: A systematic review.","authors":"Christina Ziebart, Armaghan Dabbagh, Stephanie Reischl, Rochelle Furtado, Joy C MacDermid","doi":"10.1016/j.apmr.2024.12.023","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The aim of this systematic review was to determine the extent to which sex and gender are considered in the design and reporting of DRF rehabilitation RCTs.</p><p><strong>Data source: </strong>PubMed, Embase, CINAHL and Pedro databases were searched in March 2022, and an updated search was conducted in July 2023.</p><p><strong>Study selection: </strong>All RCTs with a rehabilitation intervention and any comparison were included.</p><p><strong>Data extraction: </strong>We extracted information on the study characteristics and sex and gender reporting in the articles. We extracted whether the studies complied with the SAGER guidelines and a reporting tool for sex and gender.</p><p><strong>Data synthesis: </strong>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 six of the 77 RCTs investigating rehabilitation interventions post-DRF. Three of those studies were published before the SAGER guidelines were published in 2016, and three were published after 2016.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":8313,"journal":{"name":"Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-21","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://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2024.12.023","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

Abstract

Objective: The aim of this systematic review was to determine the extent to which sex and gender are considered in the design and reporting of DRF rehabilitation RCTs.

Data source: 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 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 six of the 77 RCTs investigating rehabilitation interventions post-DRF. Three of those studies were published before the SAGER guidelines were published in 2016, and three were published after 2016.

Conclusion: 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.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 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.
期刊最新文献
Pneumonia Prolongs Rehabilitation Length of Stay and Induces Excess Costs in Adults with Acute Spinal Cord Injury: A Causal Inference Study Using Prospective Multi-Center Data. Technology-Based Physical Rehabilitation for Balance in people with Multiple Sclerosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Development of a Multidimensional, Multigroup Measure of Cognitive-Communication for Inpatient Rehabilitation. Masthead Table of Contents
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1