Gender Reporting in Radiology Human Subjects Research.
Purpose: The aim of this report was to study the presence and extent of gender bias and reporting in radiology human subjects research.Methods: For this bibliometric analysis, the authors reviewed all articles published between January 1, 2016, and June 30, 2016, in seven of the most cited general r...
| Publicado en: | Journal of the American College of Radiology Vol. 15; no. 9; pp. 1341 - 1346 |
|---|---|
| Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
| Formato: | research Journal Article |
| Publicado: |
Elsevier B.V.
Sep2018
|
| Acceso en línea: | Ver este registro en EBSCOhost |
| fields | @attributes: recordID: 1 pdfLink: plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ccm&AN=131403077&site=ehost-live header: @attributes: shortDbName: ccm uiTerm: 131403077 longDbName: CINAHL Complete uiTag: AN controlInfo: bkinfo: dissinfo: jinfo: jid: 15461440 EAO jtl: Journal of the American College of Radiology issn: 15461440 maglogo: N pubinfo: dt: Sep2018 vid: 15 iid: 9 pid: 467 pub: Elsevier B.V. place: New York, New York artinfo: ui: 131403077 131403077 NLM29980350 131403077 10.1016/j.jacr.2018.05.017 NLM29980350 131403077 ppf: 1341 ppct: 5 formats: tig: atl: Gender Reporting in Radiology Human Subjects Research. aug: au: Balthazar, Patricia Moreno, Courtney C. Jalilvand, Aryan Vey, Brianna L. Mulvey, Thomas R. Jr.Duszak, Richard Duszak, Richard Jr affil: Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia sug: subj: Specialties, Medical Sexism Research, Medical Research Subjects Female Male Bibliometrics Questionnaires Female Male ab: Purpose: The aim of this report was to study the presence and extent of gender bias and reporting in radiology human subjects research.Methods: For this bibliometric analysis, the authors reviewed all articles published between January 1, 2016, and June 30, 2016, in seven of the most cited general radiology journals. From each original research article studying human subjects, the number and gender of participants and whether gender-based results were reported were manually extracted. Articles evaluating gender-specific body parts were excluded. Article-level subject gender matching percentages were calculated and descriptive statistics reported.Results: Of all 1,065 target journal articles during the study window, 522 met the human subjects research inclusion criteria. Of these, 48 (9.2%) made no mention at all of research subjects' gender. Of the 473 articles mentioning gender, 147 (31.1%) had more female and 308 (65.1%) more male subjects. But in aggregate, 105,763 of 254,102 (41.6%) of all subjects were male and 142,069 (55.9%) were female. By quartile distribution, subject gender matching was very variable (12.9% of articles with <25% match, 23.7% with 25%-50%, 29.4% with 50%-75%, and 34.0% with ≥75%). Of articles including subjects of both genders, however, only 27.5% (126 of 458) reported any gender-based results.Conclusions: In human subjects research published in the most cited general radiology journals, the gender of human subjects is a poorly controlled, and frequently neglected, variable. In an emerging era of personalized medicine, initiatives to ensure transparent reporting of gender-specific results may help catalyze otherwise overlooked discoveries to advance the health of all. pubtype: Academic Journal doctype: research Journal Article ougenre: Article language: English refInfo: holdings: @attributes: islocal: N |
|---|