PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

Permanent URI for this communityhttps://gendermore.unimore.it/handle/123456789/1575

Browse

Settings

Discipline: search.filters.discipline.Otology & OtolaryngologySubject: search.filters.subject.Sex Bias

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Item type:Publication,
    Sex Bias in Laryngology Research and Publishing Open PDF 
    (2022)
    Pasick, Luke J.
    ;
    Yeakel, Heather
    ;
    Sataloff, Robert T.
    OBJECTIVE: To investigate sex bias in laryngology research and publishing. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Articles published in 2019 in seven mainstream otolaryngology journals were reviewed. Original manuscripts were included. Study type (medical, speech-language pathology, basic science, or pedagogy), subject sex, ≥50% sex-matching (SM≥50), sex-based analysis, and bibliometric data including author sex were recorded. RESULTS: Of 1619 publications reviewed, 259 patient-centered original laryngology studies were included, totaling 7,130,991 subjects (3,411,741 [47.8%] male; 3,718,694 [52.1%] female; 556 [0.0%] unreported). 29 studies included subjects of a single sex and 14 did not report sex. 114 (44%) studies met SM≥50, and 95 (37%) used sex-based analysis; no differences were found among study types or location. Sex-based analysis was used less in single-institution (33%) than database studies (62%, P = 0.01). No difference in SM≥50 was found among single or multi-institution, or database. There were 1340 total authors (578 [43%] female). First, corresponding, and senior authors were 47%, 39%, and 35% female, respectively. Studies that had female first and/or senior authors did not differ in rates of SM≥50 or sex-based analysis or mean enrollment of females compared to studies with male first and senior authors. The proportion of female physician first and senior authors did not differ from the proportion of female Association of American Medical Colleges otolaryngology faculty, but was non-significantly smaller than the proportion of female laryngology fellows at four academic institutions. CONCLUSION: Laryngology research exhibits sex bias in subject enrollment and sex-based analysis. Female authorship was representative of national demographics and author sex did not influence the rate of sex bias.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Sex bias: Is it pervasive in otolaryngology clinical research? Open PDF 
    (2019)
    Farzal, Zainab
    ;
    Stephenson, Elizabeth D.
    ;
    Kilpatrick, Lauren A.
    ;
    Senior, Brent A.
    ;
    Zanation, Adam M.
    Objectives/Hypothesis Recent initiatives highlight substantial sex bias in biomedical research. The objective was to determine whether sex bias is present in otolaryngology and whether sex is appropriately analyzed as an independent variable in otolaryngology clinical research. Study Design Literature review. Methods We systematically reviewed all 2016 articles in three major otolaryngology journals: The Laryngoscope, JAMA Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, and Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery. Extracted data included study origin, location, subspecialty, number/sex of subjects, ≥50% sex matching (SM≥50), and sex-based statistical analysis. Results Six hundred of 1,209 articles comprising original clinical research were reviewed including 8,997,345,495 subjects (males: 3,898,559,264 [43.3%]; females: 5,095,592,583 [56.6%]; and unknown: 3,193,648 [0.04%]). There were 533/600 (88.8%) studies that included both sexes, eight (1.3%) included females only, five (0.8%) included males only, and 56 (9.3%) did not document participant sex. Only 280 studies (46.7%) analyzed data by sex, and 330 studies (60.7%) had SM≥50. Sex-based statistical analysis and SM≥50 were similar in domestic and international studies (48.7% vs. 42.8% and 60.9% vs. 62%, respectively). Database studies performed sex-based statistical analysis more frequently than single and multi-institutional studies (79.1% vs. 40.4% and 43.4%, P < .00001). Analysis by sex was more frequently performed in head and neck surgery (53.6%) and pediatric otolaryngology (51.3%), whereas SM≥50 was highest in pediatric otolaryngology (86.8%) and otology (82.4%). Conclusions Sex bias exists in the clinical otolaryngology literature, with less than half the studies analyzing sex. Acknowledging the intertwinement of sex with disease pathophysiology and outcomes is important. Eliminating sex bias in research and clinical care should become a major focus for otolaryngologists. Level of Evidence NA Laryngoscope, 129:858–864, 2019