Suppr超能文献

危重症肾脏病学随机对照试验中的性别与性别的考量:一项元流行病学研究

Sex and gender considerations in randomized controlled trials in critical care nephrology: a meta-epidemiologic study.

作者信息

Lumlertgul Nuttha, Wannakittirat Anyarin, Kung Janice Y, Srisawat Nattachai, Collister David, See Emily J, Pannu Neesh, Mehta Ravindra L, Soranno Danielle E, Ostermann Marlies, Bagshaw Sean M

机构信息

Division of Nephrology, Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University; Excellence Centre for Critical Care Nephrology, King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital; Centre of Excellence in Critical Care Nephrology, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand.

Division of Nephrology, Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Naresuan University Hospital, Phitsanulok, Thailand.

出版信息

BMC Med. 2025 Jul 1;23(1):386. doi: 10.1186/s12916-025-04202-y.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

How sex and gender are considered in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in critical care nephrology is unclear. We aimed to perform a meta-epidemiologic study to describe the representation, sex and gender reporting, and sex- and gender-based analyses (SGBA) in high-impact RCTs in critical care nephrology.

METHODS

We searched the Web of Science Core Collection for critical care nephrology papers from 2000 to 2024. We included trials published in high-impact journals in general medicine, pediatrics, critical care, and nephrology. The main outcome was the proportion of female/woman participants enrolled and the association with trial characteristics, findings, and women authorship. We estimated the participation-to-prevalence ratio (PPR) to evaluate the representativeness of females within identified RCTs and selected case-mix and disease populations. Sex and gender reporting and SGBA were investigated.

RESULTS

A total of 117 RCTs, including 106,057 participants, were included. Sex (54.7%), gender (26.5%), both (2.6%), or none (16.2%) terminology were used for reporting. Male/female (82.1%), men/women (11.1%), both (4.3%), boys/girls (0.9%) and none (1.7%) were used as descriptors. Of the 115 RCTs with available sex/gender data, the median proportion of female/women participants was 35.4% (interquartile range (IQR) 31.2%-40.8%). Pediatric age group and process of care as an intervention were independently associated with the proportion of female/women participants. The median PPR was 0.89 (IQR 0.8-1.06), except in major surgery, for which PPR was 0.67 (IQR 0.29-0.73). Twelve (10.9%) and 49 (41.9%) studies used sex and/or gender as inclusion and exclusion criteria, respectively; 5 (4.3%) studies used sex/gender-stratified randomization; and 35 (29.9%) studies performed SGBA. RCTs with pregnancy, lactation, or women of childbearing age as exclusion criteria had a lower enrollment of female/women participants than RCTs that did not (33.6% vs. 36.8%, P = 0.04). Exclusion criteria of pregnancy, lactation, or childbearing age were considered strongly justified, potentially justified, and poorly justified in 36.1%, 14.9%, and 48.9%, respectively. There were no changes in the representation of females/women and SGBA across identified RCTs over the search range.

CONCLUSIONS

Females/women are less frequently represented in critical care nephrology RCTs. Significant gaps exist in sex- and gender-specific eligibility criteria, reporting, and analysis.

摘要

背景

在重症监护肾脏病学的随机对照试验(RCT)中,如何考虑性别和性别的问题尚不清楚。我们旨在进行一项元流行病学研究,以描述重症监护肾脏病学领域高影响力RCT中的代表性、性别报告以及基于性别的分析(SGBA)。

方法

我们在科学网核心合集(Web of Science Core Collection)中检索了2000年至2024年的重症监护肾脏病学论文。我们纳入了发表在普通医学、儿科学、重症监护和肾脏病学高影响力期刊上的试验。主要结果是纳入的女性参与者比例以及与试验特征、结果和女性作者身份的关联。我们估计参与率与患病率之比(PPR),以评估已识别的RCT以及选定的病例组合和疾病人群中女性的代表性。对性别报告和SGBA进行了调查。

结果

共纳入117项RCT,包括106,057名参与者。报告中使用了性别(54.7%)、性(26.5%)、两者(2.6%)或都不使用(16.2%)术语。使用男性/女性(82.1%)、男性/女性(11.1%)、两者(4.3%)、男孩/女孩(0.9%)和都不使用(1.7%)作为描述词。在115项有可用性别/性数据的RCT中,女性参与者的中位数比例为35.4%(四分位间距(IQR)31.2%-40.8%)。儿科年龄组和作为干预措施的护理过程与女性参与者比例独立相关。中位数PPR为0.89(IQR 0.8-1.06),重大手术除外,其PPR为0.67(IQR 0.29-0.73)。分别有12项(10.9%)和49项(41.9%)研究将性别和/或性作为纳入和排除标准;5项(4.3%)研究使用了性别分层随机化;35项(29.9%)研究进行了SGBA。将怀孕、哺乳或育龄女性作为排除标准的RCT,其女性参与者的入组率低于未将这些作为排除标准的RCT(33.6%对36.8%,P = 0.04)。怀孕、哺乳或育龄的排除标准被认为有充分理由、可能有理由和理由不足的分别为36.1%、14.9%和48.9%。在搜索范围内,已识别的RCT中女性的代表性和SGBA没有变化。

结论

在重症监护肾脏病学RCT中,女性的代表性较低。在性别特异性的纳入标准、报告和分析方面存在显著差距。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/ff4c/12220064/68f7739d8298/12916_2025_4202_Fig1_HTML.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验