ReviewBMC medical research methodology2025
The use of race and ethnicity in sickle cell disease research.
Review in BMC medical research methodology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The dilemma of using racial and ethnic categories in biomedical research.BMC medical research methodology · 2026Article
- Inclusive methodological awareness for equity and diversity in biomedical research.BMC medical research methodology · 2025Article
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
This study explores practices surrounding the operationalization of ethno-racial categories (ERCs) as confounders in biomedical research, with a focus on sickle cell disease (SCD) as a model. ERCs, often aggregate labels encompassing diverse individuals which raises questions about their relevance as confounders. Given SCD's racialization as a "Black" disease, understanding ERC utilization is crucial. This study analyzed 1,105 SCD studies published globally. Data were collected on whether ERC adjustment was employed, regional variations in ERC-adjustment rates, labels used for ERCs, rationales provided for ERC matching, and methods used for ERC determination. 28% of the studies utilized ERC adjustment, with significant regional disparities (p < 0.001). Notably, Western studies showed higher rates of ERC adjustment compared to other regions. However, crucial details such as ERC labels and methodology were frequently missing. Commonly used labels included "African" or "Black." Only 7% of studies provided explicit rationales for ERC matching, and 70% did not specify the method used for ERC determination. The findings underscore the need to adhere to guidelines on ERC operationalization in biomedicine. The lack of standardized practices raises concerns about potential biases and misinterpretations in research outcomes. Adhering to clear guidelines can mitigate the risk of perpetuating racial stereotypes and inequalities while ensuring research integrity.
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.