ArticleRespiratory research & clinical practice2026
Patient and author diversity and representation in studies supporting the European Respiratory Society/European Society of Intensive Care Medicine/European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases/Asociación Latinoamericana de Tórax severe community-acquired pneumonia guidelines.
Article in Respiratory research & clinical practice, 2026. 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Insufficient diversity is common among patients and authors in studies supporting guidelines. We hypothesized that the latest severe community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) guidelines suffered from such bias. Methods: We reviewed all original studies supporting the latest severe CAP guidelines. We assessed whether there were language restrictions in the search for studies to be included in each recommendation and recorded the following: the proportion of female patients included in the studies; ethnicity (when available); year of publication; and study location, which was classified by income in accordance with the World Bank classification. We also compiled data on the sex and affiliation of the first and last authors. Results: The guidelines included 115 references in eight sections; 74 unique references supported the recommendations. There was language restriction in the selection of studies in 3 of 8 questions. The proportion of female patients ranged from 4.7% to 70.5% (mean, 36%). Most of the patients were White (72.2-91.2%), and 80.5% of the studies were conducted in high-income countries. Only 6 (5.2%) of the 115 references included patients from low- or middle-income countries. Most of the first and last authors were male (75.6-88.3%) and were based in high-income countries (96.1%). Conclusions: The studies supporting the severe CAP guidelines were found to have insufficient diversity and representativeness of patients, sex, and country of origin of the authors. To enhance the generalizability of severe CAP guidelines, strategies must be devised to increase the diversity of patients and authors.
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.