Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC.
Int Forum Allergy Rhinol. 2018 Dec;8(12):1469-1475. doi: 10.1002/alr.22179. Epub 2018 Jul 20.
Analysis of general surgery literature has revealed noteworthy sex bias and underreporting. Our objective was to determine the prevalence of sex bias and underreporting in rhinology.
All articles in 2016 issues of Rhinology, the American Journal of Rhinology and Allergy (AJRA), and the International Forum of Allergy and Rhinology (IFAR) were reviewed. Of 369 articles, 248 met inclusion criteria. Excluded studies were cadaveric, meta-analysis/review, and editorial. Data collected included study type, demographics, and sex-based statistical analysis.
There were 202 clinical and 46 basic science/translational studies. From 188 of 202 clinical studies with known sex, 1 included participants of a single sex. Sex matching >50% (SM ) was found in 81.9%, and 55.9% performed sex-based statistical analysis. Domestic clinical studies performed sex-based analysis more frequently than international (54.9% vs 44.4%) and exhibited a higher rate of SM (84.5% vs 80.3%), though these differences were not statistically significant. For basic/translational studies, 54.5% (24/44) provided sex breakdown. Among these, 29.2% included 1 sex, and 8.3% performed sex-based analysis. Of 10 using animals, 70.0% utilized 1 sex. The remaining 30.0% did not report sex. None of 4 cell line studies reported cell sex. Less than half (46.2%) of domestic and 56.3% of international studies reported sex breakdown; 7.7% of domestic and 3.0% of international studies performed sex-based analysis.
Although sex may impact outcomes, research without sex reporting and analysis is prevalent, particularly among basic science/translational studies. Future research must account for sex in demographics and analysis to best inform evidence-based clinical guidelines.
对普通外科学文献的分析显示出显著的性别偏见和报告不足。我们的目的是确定鼻科学中性别偏见和报告不足的发生率。
回顾了 2016 年《鼻科学》、《美国鼻科学与变态反应杂志》（AJRA）和《国际变态反应与鼻科学论坛》（IFAR）的所有文章。在 369 篇文章中，有 248 篇符合纳入标准。排除的研究为尸体研究、荟萃分析/综述和社论。收集的数据包括研究类型、人口统计学和基于性别的统计分析。
有 202 项临床研究和 46 项基础科学/转化研究。在 188 项已知有性别的 202 项临床研究中，有 1 项研究仅纳入了单一性别参与者。性别匹配率（SM）>50%（SM）的研究占 81.9%，其中 55.9%进行了基于性别的统计分析。国内临床研究进行基于性别的分析比国际研究更频繁（54.9%比 44.4%），SM 率更高（84.5%比 80.3%），尽管这些差异无统计学意义。对于基础/转化研究，54.5%（24/44）提供了性别分类。在这些研究中，29.2%包含了 1 种性别，8.3%进行了基于性别的分析。在使用动物的 10 项研究中，有 70.0%使用了 1 种性别。其余 30.0%没有报告性别。4 项细胞系研究均未报告细胞性别。不到一半（46.2%）的国内研究和 56.3%的国际研究报告了性别分类；7.7%的国内研究和 3.0%的国际研究进行了基于性别的分析。
尽管性别可能影响结果，但缺乏性别报告和分析的研究仍然很普遍，特别是在基础科学/转化研究中。未来的研究必须在人口统计学和分析中考虑性别因素，以便为循证临床指南提供最佳信息。
