ArticleJournal of clinical epidemiology2020
Female under-representation in sepsis studies: a bibliometric analysis of systematic reviews and guidelines.
Article in Journal of clinical epidemiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Female Sex and Mortality in Patients With Gram-Negative Bacteremia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.JAMA network open · 2025Pooled it
- Incorporating an equity perspective in systematic reviews of interventions: potential methodological approaches.Journal of epidemiology and community health · 2026Review
- Differential disease tolerance mediates sex-biased illness severity in sepsis.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026Article
- Article
- Article
- Improving the reporting on health equity in observational research (STROBE-Equity): extension checklist and elaboration.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2025Article
- Gender, race, and ethnicity in lung cancer clinical trial participation: Analysis of 253,845 patients from 2002 to 2021.The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery · 2025Article
- Sex- and Gender-Based Analysis on Norepinephrine Use in Septic Shock: Why Is It Still a Male World?Microorganisms · 2024Article
- Equity Considerations in COVID-19 Vaccination Studies of Individuals With Autoimmune Inflammatory Rheumatic Diseases.Arthritis care & research · 2023Article
- Sepsis-related immunosuppression: a bibliometric analysis.Journal of thoracic disease · 2023Article
- Clinical Trial Participation and COVID-19: a Descriptive Analysis from the American Heart Association's Get With The Guidelines Registry.Journal of racial and ethnic health disparities · 2023Article
- Lack of sex-related analysis and reporting in Cochrane Reviews: a cross-sectional study.Systematic reviews · 2022Article
- Let's get loud: Amplifying female voices in sepsis research.EBioMedicine · 2022Article
- The Effects of Biological Sex on Sepsis Treatments in Animal Models: A Systematic Review and a Narrative Elaboration on Sex- and Gender-Dependent Differences in Sepsis.Critical care explorations · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe objective of the study was to assess female representation in primary studies underpinning recommendations from clinical guidelines and systematic reviews for sepsis treatment in adults. STUDY DESIGN AND
settingWe conducted a bibliometric study. We removed studies pertaining to sex-specific diseases and included quasirandomized, randomized clinical trials (RCTs), and observational studies. We analyzed the female participation-to-prevalence ratio (PPR).
resultsWe included 277 studies published between 1973 and 2017. For the 246 studies for which sex data were available, the share of female participation was 40%. Females overall were under-represented relative to their share of the sepsis population (PPR 0.78). Disaggregated results were reported by sex in 57 studies. In univariate analyses, non-intensive care unit setting and consideration of other social health determinants were significantly associated with greater female participation (P < 0.001 and P = 0.023, respectively). In regression models, studies published in 1996 or later were likely to report sex, while RCTs were unlikely to do so (P = 0.019 and P < 0.001, respectively).
conclusionOur study points to female underenrollment in sepsis studies. Primary studies underpinning recommendations for sepsis have poorly reported their findings by sex.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32561368What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.