ArticleJournal of midwifery & women's health
Sex and Gender Variables in Data Set Creation and Data Cleaning for Inclusive and Accurate Reproductive Health Research and Quality Improvement.
Article in Journal of midwifery & women's health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Testosterone: Vital to female physiology.Women's health (London, England)Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionExisting data is often used for reproductive research and quality improvement. Electronic health records (EHRs) with a single data field for sex and gender conflate sex assigned at birth, genotype, gender identity, and the presence of anatomic tissue and organs. This is problematic for inclusion of transgender and gender-diverse populations in research. This article discusses considerations with a single-item sex and gender variable drawn from EHR records and describes an audit to determine variable validity as a criterion for inclusion or exclusion in perinatal research.
methodsIndividuals with a live birth at a large academic medical center from 2010 to 2022 were identified via electronic query, and records with male demographic information were reviewed to validate (1) the patient's date of birth and delivery date in the EHR matched the medical record number, (2) male sex and gender demographic information, and (3) male gender terms in EHR notes.
resultsAll health records of male birthing individuals (n = 8) had EHR evidence of giving birth within the health system during the timeframe, and the date of birth matched the medical record number of the EHR. All had male gender in the EHR demographic information. Six patients did not have any male gender terms in available EHR notes, only female gender terms. Two records had recent notes using male gender terms. DISCUSSION: Current EHRs may not have reliable data on the gender and sex of gender-diverse individuals. A single sex and gender variable drawn from EHRs should not be used as inclusion or exclusion criteria for health research or quality improvement without additional record review. EHRs can be updated to collect more data on sex, gender identity, and other relevant variables to improve research and quality improvement.
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.