ReviewJournal of vascular surgery2024
Reporting and analysis of sex in vascular surgery research.
Review in Journal of vascular surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo examine sex in human vascular surgery research by quantifying the inclusion and analysis of sex-based data in high-impact vascular surgery journals.
methodsA bibliographic review of original articles published in the European Journal of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, Journal of Vascular Surgery, JVS: Venous and Lymphatic Disorders, Journal of Endovascular Therapy, and Annals of Vascular Surgery from January 1, 2018, to December 31, 2020, and from January 1, 2023, to December 31, 2023, was conducted. Abstracted data included sex-based data analysis, inclusion of sex as a variable in multivariable analysis, inclusion of sex as an independent variable, and a discussion of sex-based results.
resultsOf the 3762 articles that included human, animal, or cell subjects, 249 (6.6%) did not state sex. Of those 249 articles, 183 included human subjects, 55 included animal subjects, and 11 used cell lines as the subjects. These were removed from analysis as well as the remaining 68 articles with animal subjects. In addition, 23 researched a sex-specific pathology and were removed from analysis. Of the remaining 3422 articles included in our study, 42.3% analyzed sex, 46.9% included sex in multivariable analysis, 4.8% included sex as an independent variable, and 26.6% included a discussion of sex. There were no significant differences in all four sex variables between 2018, 2019, and 2020. Between 2018-2020 and 2023, there were significant increases in all four sex variables. Multicenter studies had significantly higher rates of independent analysis of sex over single-center studies (7.4% vs 3.3%, P < .001). There was no significant difference in independent analysis of sex between U.S.-based and non-U.S.-based studies. Only 191 articles (5.6%) had 90% or greater matching of men and women in their study.
conclusionsEquitable inclusion and analysis of sex is rare in vascular surgery research. Less than 5% of articles included an independent analysis of data by sex, and few studies included males and females equally. Clinical research is the basis for evidence-based medicine; therefore, it is important to strive for equitable inclusion, analysis, and reporting of data to foster generalizability of clinical research to men and women.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.