测量数据差距:将性别和性别报告纳入糖尿病研究。

IF 7.2 Q1 ETHICS Research integrity and peer review Pub Date : 2019-05-07 eCollection Date: 2019-01-01 DOI:10.1186/s41073-019-0068-4
Suzanne Day, Wei Wu, Robin Mason, Paula A Rochon
{"title":"测量数据差距:将性别和性别报告纳入糖尿病研究。","authors":"Suzanne Day,&nbsp;Wei Wu,&nbsp;Robin Mason,&nbsp;Paula A Rochon","doi":"10.1186/s41073-019-0068-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Important sex and gender differences have been found in research on diabetes complications and treatment. Reporting on whether and how sex and gender impact research findings is crucial for developing tailored diabetes care strategies. To analyze the extent to which this information is available in current diabetes research, we examined original investigations on diabetes for the integration of sex and gender in study reporting.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We examined original investigations on diabetes published between January 1 and December 31, 2015, in the top five general medicine journals and top five diabetes-specific journals (by 2015 impact factor). Data were extracted on sex and gender integration across seven article sections: title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, discussion, and limitations.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We identified 155 original investigations on diabetes, including 115 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 40 observational studies. Sex and gender were rarely incorporated in article titles, abstracts and introductions. Most methods sections did not describe plans for sex/gender analyses; 47 (30.3%) articles described plans to control for sex/gender in the analysis and 12 (7.7%) described plans to stratify results by sex/gender. While most articles (151, 97.4%) reported the sex/gender of study participants, only 10 (6.5%) of all articles reported all study outcomes separately by sex/gender. Discussion of sex-related issues was incorporated into 21 (13.5%) original investigations; however, just 1 (0.6%) discussed gender-related issues. Comparison by journal type (general medicine vs. diabetes specific) yielded only minor differences from the overall integration results. In contrast, RCTs performed more poorly on multiple sex/gender assessment metrics compared to observational studies.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Sex and gender are poorly integrated in current diabetes original investigations, suggesting that substantial improvements in sex and gender data reporting are needed to inform the evidence to support sex- and gender-specific diabetes care.</p>","PeriodicalId":74682,"journal":{"name":"Research integrity and peer review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":7.2000,"publicationDate":"2019-05-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1186/s41073-019-0068-4","citationCount":"11","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Measuring the data gap: inclusion of sex and gender reporting in diabetes research.\",\"authors\":\"Suzanne Day,&nbsp;Wei Wu,&nbsp;Robin Mason,&nbsp;Paula A Rochon\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s41073-019-0068-4\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Important sex and gender differences have been found in research on diabetes complications and treatment. Reporting on whether and how sex and gender impact research findings is crucial for developing tailored diabetes care strategies. To analyze the extent to which this information is available in current diabetes research, we examined original investigations on diabetes for the integration of sex and gender in study reporting.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We examined original investigations on diabetes published between January 1 and December 31, 2015, in the top five general medicine journals and top five diabetes-specific journals (by 2015 impact factor). Data were extracted on sex and gender integration across seven article sections: title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, discussion, and limitations.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We identified 155 original investigations on diabetes, including 115 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 40 observational studies. Sex and gender were rarely incorporated in article titles, abstracts and introductions. Most methods sections did not describe plans for sex/gender analyses; 47 (30.3%) articles described plans to control for sex/gender in the analysis and 12 (7.7%) described plans to stratify results by sex/gender. While most articles (151, 97.4%) reported the sex/gender of study participants, only 10 (6.5%) of all articles reported all study outcomes separately by sex/gender. Discussion of sex-related issues was incorporated into 21 (13.5%) original investigations; however, just 1 (0.6%) discussed gender-related issues. Comparison by journal type (general medicine vs. diabetes specific) yielded only minor differences from the overall integration results. In contrast, RCTs performed more poorly on multiple sex/gender assessment metrics compared to observational studies.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Sex and gender are poorly integrated in current diabetes original investigations, suggesting that substantial improvements in sex and gender data reporting are needed to inform the evidence to support sex- and gender-specific diabetes care.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":74682,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Research integrity and peer review\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":7.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-05-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1186/s41073-019-0068-4\",\"citationCount\":\"11\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Research integrity and peer review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-019-0068-4\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2019/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research integrity and peer review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-019-0068-4","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2019/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 11

摘要

背景:在糖尿病并发症和治疗的研究中发现了重要的性别差异。报告性别和社会性别是否以及如何影响研究结果对于制定量身定制的糖尿病护理策略至关重要。为了分析这一信息在当前糖尿病研究中的可用程度,我们检查了关于糖尿病的原始调查,以便在研究报告中整合性别和社会性别。方法:选取2015年1月1日至12月31日期间发表在排名前五的普通医学期刊和排名前五的糖尿病专门性期刊(按2015年影响因子排序)上的关于糖尿病的原始研究。从文章标题、摘要、引言、方法、结果、讨论和局限性这七个部分提取了关于性别和性别整合的数据。结果:我们确定了155项关于糖尿病的原始研究,包括115项随机对照试验(rct)和40项观察性研究。性别和社会性别很少出现在文章标题、摘要和介绍中。大多数方法部分没有描述性/性别分析的计划;47篇(30.3%)文章描述了在分析中控制性别/性别的计划,12篇(7.7%)文章描述了按性别/性别对结果进行分层的计划。虽然大多数文章(151.97.4%)报道了研究参与者的性别/性别,但只有10篇(6.5%)的文章单独报道了所有研究结果。与性有关的问题被纳入21例(13.5%)原始调查;然而,只有1人(0.6%)讨论了与性别有关的问题。期刊类型的比较(普通医学与糖尿病特异性)与整体整合结果只有很小的差异。相比之下,与观察性研究相比,随机对照试验在多重性别/性别评估指标上的表现更差。结论:在目前的糖尿病原始调查中,性别和社会性别的整合程度较差,这表明需要在性别和社会性别数据报告方面进行实质性改进,以便为支持针对性别和性别的糖尿病护理提供证据。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

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
Measuring the data gap: inclusion of sex and gender reporting in diabetes research.

Background: Important sex and gender differences have been found in research on diabetes complications and treatment. Reporting on whether and how sex and gender impact research findings is crucial for developing tailored diabetes care strategies. To analyze the extent to which this information is available in current diabetes research, we examined original investigations on diabetes for the integration of sex and gender in study reporting.

Methods: We examined original investigations on diabetes published between January 1 and December 31, 2015, in the top five general medicine journals and top five diabetes-specific journals (by 2015 impact factor). Data were extracted on sex and gender integration across seven article sections: title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, discussion, and limitations.

Results: We identified 155 original investigations on diabetes, including 115 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 40 observational studies. Sex and gender were rarely incorporated in article titles, abstracts and introductions. Most methods sections did not describe plans for sex/gender analyses; 47 (30.3%) articles described plans to control for sex/gender in the analysis and 12 (7.7%) described plans to stratify results by sex/gender. While most articles (151, 97.4%) reported the sex/gender of study participants, only 10 (6.5%) of all articles reported all study outcomes separately by sex/gender. Discussion of sex-related issues was incorporated into 21 (13.5%) original investigations; however, just 1 (0.6%) discussed gender-related issues. Comparison by journal type (general medicine vs. diabetes specific) yielded only minor differences from the overall integration results. In contrast, RCTs performed more poorly on multiple sex/gender assessment metrics compared to observational studies.

Conclusions: Sex and gender are poorly integrated in current diabetes original investigations, suggesting that substantial improvements in sex and gender data reporting are needed to inform the evidence to support sex- and gender-specific diabetes care.

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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
5 weeks
期刊最新文献
Investigating the links between questionable research practices, scientific norms and organisational culture. An evaluation of the preprints produced at the beginning of the 2022 mpox public health emergency. Differences in the reporting of conflicts of interest and sponsorships in systematic reviews with meta-analyses in dentistry: an examination of factors associated with their reporting. Knowledge and practices of plagiarism among journal editors of Nepal. Perceptions, experiences, and motivation of COVID-19 vaccine trial participants in South Africa: a qualitative study.
×
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