PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Settings

Subject: search.filters.subject.Research Design

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 5 of 5
  • Item type:Publication,
    Sex and Gender Considerations in Orthopaedic Research Open PDF 
    (Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health), 2024-10-08)
    Bechtold, Joan E.
    ;
    Bauer, Thomas W.
    ;
    Clayton, Janine
    ;
    Foucher, Kharma C.
    ;
    Graves, Leland
    JBJS convened a symposium to discuss the reporting of sex and gender in research studies as an imperative to improve research methods and results to benefit all patients. Barriers to improved reporting include a lack of societal and cultural acceptance of its need; a lack of education regarding appropriate terminology and appropriate statistical methods and efficient study designs; a need for increased research funding to support larger group sizes; unknown concordance of cell and animal models with humans to reflect biologic variables such as sex; and a lack of understanding of key considerations of gender, race, and other social determinants of health and how these factors intersect. Attention to developing and disseminating best-practice statistical methods and to educating investigators (at all career levels), reviewers, funders, editors, and staff in their proper implementation will aid reporting. Concomitantly, well-designed studies with sufficient rigor and adequate resources are essential to enable meaningful and reproducible research. Existing recommendations, such as the Sex and Gender Equity in Research (SAGER) guidelines, provide valuable guidance that can be applied across the research ecosystem. Academic institutions and private foundations are likely groups to assist in scientific and institutional review board guidance and study recruitment and pilot funding to generate meaningful power estimates, and to serve as sources for additional funding and presentation of workshops, educational events, and seminars. All of this needs to be conducted on an ongoing basis to ensure that sex and gender are considered in scientific analyses, where relevant.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Trends of female authorship in speech-language pathology publications over the last decade Open PDF 
    (BMJ, 2025-07)
    Ganesan, Sandhya
    ;
    Ferraro, Tatiana
    ;
    Smaoui, Sana
    ;
    Zitoun, Leena
    ;
    Pramanik, Lara
    Objectives The purpose of this study was to analyse the speech-language pathology (SLP) literature from 2012 to 2022 and evaluate authorship trends and factors associated with gender disparities. Design and outcome measures Authorship across journals published by the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA) was evaluated. Outcomes collected from each article included the gender of the first and senior authors, author department affiliations, study type, reported funding source and the country of origin. Three sets of linear regression models were explored to determine the probability of male first authorship, of male senior authorship, and of a study being funded. Results A total of 2754 articles were identified for inclusion. The majority of the literature was authored by females, with 77% of first authors and 68% of senior authors being female. Studies with a male senior author were shown to be 4.05–4.67 times more likely to have a male first author than with a female senior author. Male senior authors were over-represented relative to their proportion of ASHA membership compared with female senior authors. Male authorship was associated with certain subtopics, including voice, stuttering and motor speech. Funding probability decreased for all authors regardless of gender between 2012 and 2022. Conclusions Implicit gender bias and societal gender stereotypes lead to a greater number of women in the field of SLP; the same biases and stereotypes often limit the research productivity and academic leadership potential of women in the field. Addressing these biases and stereotypes is vital to move towards gender equity in the field.
  • Item type:Publication,
  • Item type:Publication,
    Sex bias in rhinology research Open PDF 
    (2018)
    Stephenson, Elizabeth D.
    ;
    Farzal, Zainab
    ;
    Zanation, Adam M.
    ;
    Senior, Brent A.
    Background Analysis of general surgery literature has revealed noteworthy sex bias and underreporting. Our objective was to determine the prevalence of sex bias and underreporting in rhinology. Methods All articles in 2016 issues of Rhinology, the American Journal of Rhinology and Allergy (AJRA), and the International Forum of Allergy and Rhinology (IFAR) were reviewed. Of 369 articles, 248 met inclusion criteria. Excluded studies were cadaveric, meta-analysis/review, and editorial. Data collected included study type, demographics, and sex-based statistical analysis. Results There were 202 clinical and 46 basic science/translational studies. From 188 of 202 clinical studies with known sex, 1 included participants of a single sex. Sex matching >50% (SM50) was found in 81.9%, and 55.9% performed sex-based statistical analysis. Domestic clinical studies performed sex-based analysis more frequently than international (54.9% vs 44.4%) and exhibited a higher rate of SM50 (84.5% vs 80.3%), though these differences were not statistically significant. For basic/translational studies, 54.5% (24/44) provided sex breakdown. Among these, 29.2% included 1 sex, and 8.3% performed sex-based analysis. Of 10 using animals, 70.0% utilized 1 sex. The remaining 30.0% did not report sex. None of 4 cell line studies reported cell sex. Less than half (46.2%) of domestic and 56.3% of international studies reported sex breakdown; 7.7% of domestic and 3.0% of international studies performed sex-based analysis. Conclusion Although sex may impact outcomes, research without sex reporting and analysis is prevalent, particularly among basic science/translational studies. Future research must account for sex in demographics and analysis to best inform evidence-based clinical guidelines.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Potential Sex Bias Exists in Orthopaedic Basic Science and Translational Research Open PDF 
    (2018)
    Bryant, Jessica
    ;
    Yi, Paul
    ;
    Miller, Liane
    ;
    Peek, Kacy
    ;
    Lee, Daniel
    BACKGROUND: Potential sex bias has been shown in general surgery basic science and translational research, with unequal representation of male and female specimens. Because basic science research forms the foundation for clinical studies on which patient care is based, it is important that this research equally consider both sexes. The purpose of this study was to determine if potential sex bias exists in the basic science and translational orthopaedic literature. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted of all articles published in 2014 in The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery, Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, The Bone & Joint Journal, and the Journal of Orthopaedic Research (JOR). All original research articles utilizing animals, cells, or cadavers were included. The data abstracted included study type, sex of specimen studied, and presence of sex-based reporting of data. A second review was performed of all basic science articles published in JOR in 1994, 2004, and 2014 to compare sex bias trends across 3 decades. Distributions of variables were compared using the Fisher exact test, with significance defined as p < 0.05. RESULTS: Of 1,693 articles reviewed, 250 (15%) were included: 122 animal-based studies (49%), 71 cell-based studies (28%), and 57 human cadaver-based studies (23%). Overall, authors in 88 studies (35%) did not report the sex of animals, cells, or cadavers used. Of 162 studies in which the authors did report sex, 69 (43%) utilized male only, 40 (25%) utilized female only, and 53 (33%) utilized both sexes. Of those studies that used both sexes, authors in only 7 studies (13%) reported sex-based results. A subanalysis of JOR articles across 3 decades revealed a significant increase in studies specifying sex (p = 0.01) from 2004 to 2014. CONCLUSIONS: Potential sex bias exists in orthopaedic surgery basic science and translational research, with an overrepresentation of male specimens. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Inequality in sex representation must be addressed as basic science and translational research creates the foundation for subsequent clinical research, which ultimately informs clinical care.