The George Institute for Global Health, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
The George Institute for Global Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Heart. 2019 Nov;105(22):1701-1708. doi: 10.1136/heartjnl-2019-315299. Epub 2019 Aug 1.
Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading cause of death in women and men. Yet biological and social factors differ between the sexes, while the importance of CVD in women may be underestimated due to the higher age-specific rates in men and the historical bias towards the male model of CVD. Consequently, sex differences in risk factor associations with CVD occur, but these are not always recognised. This article argues that sex disaggregation should be the norm in CVD research, for both humanitarian and clinical reasons. A tutorial on how to design and analyse sex comparisons is provided, including ways of reducing bias and increasing efficiency. This is presented both in the context of analysing individual participant data from a single study and a meta-analysis of sex-specific summary data. Worked examples are provided for both types of research. Fifteen key recommendations are included, which should be considered when undertaking sex comparisons of CVD associations. Paramount among these is the need to estimate sex differences, as ratios of relative risks or differences in risk differences, rather than merely test them for statistical significance. Conversely, when there is no evidence of statistical or clinical significance of a sex difference, the conclusions from the research should not be sex-specific.
心血管疾病(CVD)是男女死亡的主要原因。然而,生物学和社会因素在性别之间存在差异,而由于男性的特定年龄发病率较高,以及历史上对男性 CVD 模型的偏见,女性 CVD 的重要性可能被低估。因此,与 CVD 相关的风险因素在性别之间存在差异,但这些差异并不总是被认识到。本文认为,出于人道主义和临床原因,CVD 研究应该将性别分类作为常规做法。本文提供了关于如何设计和分析性别比较的教程,包括减少偏差和提高效率的方法。这是在分析来自单个研究的个体参与者数据和荟萃分析的性别特异性汇总数据的背景下进行的。为这两种类型的研究都提供了实例。包括 15 项关键建议,在进行 CVD 关联的性别比较时应考虑这些建议。其中最重要的是需要估计性别差异,例如相对风险的比值或风险差异的差异,而不仅仅是测试它们的统计学意义。相反,当没有证据表明性别差异具有统计学或临床意义时,研究的结论不应具有性别特异性。