Reporting of sex effects by systematic reviews on interventions for depression, diabetes, and chronic pain

W. Duan-Porter, K.M. Goldstein, J.R. McDuffie, J.M. Hughes, M.E.B. Clowse, R.S. Klap, V. Masilamani, N.M.A. LaPointe, A. Nagi, J.M. Gierisch, J.W. Williams

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

4 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Systematic reviews (SRs) have the potential to contribute uniquely to the evaluation of sex and gender differences (termed "sex effects"). This article describes the reporting of sex effects by SRs on interventions for depression, type 2 diabetes mellitus, and chronic pain conditions (chronic low back pain, knee osteoarthritis, and fibromyalgia). It includes SRs published since 1 October 2009 that evaluate medications, behavioral interventions, exercise, quality improvement, and some condition-specific treatments. The reporting of sex effects by primary randomized, controlled trials is also examined. Of 313 eligible SRs (86 for depression, 159 for type 2 diabetes mellitus, and 68 for chronic pain), few (n = 29) reported sex effects. Most SRs reporting sex effects used metaregression, whereas 9 SRs used subgroup analysis or individual-patient data meta-analysis. The proportion of SRs reporting the sex distribution of primary studies varied from a low of 31% (n = 8) for low back pain to a high of 68% (n = 23) for fibromyalgia. Primary randomized, controlled trials also infrequently reported sex effects, and most lacked an adequate sample size to examine them. Therefore, all SRs should report the proportion of women enrolled in primary studies and evaluate sex effects using appropriate methods whenever power is adequate. © 2016 American College of Physicians.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)184-193
Number of pages10
JournalAnnals of Internal Medicine
Volume165
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - 2016

Fingerprint

Chronic Pain
Depression
Fibromyalgia
Low Back Pain
Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus
Randomized Controlled Trials
Sex Distribution
Knee Osteoarthritis
Quality Improvement
Sex Characteristics
Sample Size
Meta-Analysis
Exercise
Physicians

Bibliographical note

Cited By :4

Export Date: 26 December 2018

CODEN: AIMEA

Correspondence Address: Duan-Porter, W.; Durham Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Duke University, School of Medicine, 411 West Chapel Hill Street, United States; email: wei.duan-porter@duke.edu

Keywords

  • Article
  • chronic pain
  • clinical trial (topic)
  • data synthesis
  • depression
  • diabetes mellitus
  • evidence based practice
  • funding
  • human
  • intervention study
  • meta analysis (topic)
  • nonhuman
  • priority journal
  • program evaluation
  • quality control
  • randomized controlled trial (topic)
  • sex
  • sex ratio
  • systematic review
  • Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2
  • female
  • literature
  • low back pain
  • male
  • sex difference
  • Chronic Pain
  • Depression
  • Female
  • Humans
  • Low Back Pain
  • Male
  • Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
  • Review Literature as Topic
  • Sex Factors

Cite this

Duan-Porter, W., Goldstein, K. M., McDuffie, J. R., Hughes, J. M., Clowse, M. E. B., Klap, R. S., ... Williams, J. W. (2016). Reporting of sex effects by systematic reviews on interventions for depression, diabetes, and chronic pain. Annals of Internal Medicine, 165(3), 184-193. https://doi.org/10.7326/M15-2877

Reporting of sex effects by systematic reviews on interventions for depression, diabetes, and chronic pain. / Duan-Porter, W.; Goldstein, K.M.; McDuffie, J.R.; Hughes, J.M.; Clowse, M.E.B.; Klap, R.S.; Masilamani, V.; LaPointe, N.M.A.; Nagi, A.; Gierisch, J.M.; Williams, J.W.

In: Annals of Internal Medicine, Vol. 165, No. 3, 2016, p. 184-193.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Duan-Porter, W, Goldstein, KM, McDuffie, JR, Hughes, JM, Clowse, MEB, Klap, RS, Masilamani, V, LaPointe, NMA, Nagi, A, Gierisch, JM & Williams, JW 2016, 'Reporting of sex effects by systematic reviews on interventions for depression, diabetes, and chronic pain' Annals of Internal Medicine, vol. 165, no. 3, pp. 184-193. https://doi.org/10.7326/M15-2877
Duan-Porter, W. ; Goldstein, K.M. ; McDuffie, J.R. ; Hughes, J.M. ; Clowse, M.E.B. ; Klap, R.S. ; Masilamani, V. ; LaPointe, N.M.A. ; Nagi, A. ; Gierisch, J.M. ; Williams, J.W. / Reporting of sex effects by systematic reviews on interventions for depression, diabetes, and chronic pain. In: Annals of Internal Medicine. 2016 ; Vol. 165, No. 3. pp. 184-193.
@article{eb830182157e48d6aa5a6cb08ad3617a,
title = "Reporting of sex effects by systematic reviews on interventions for depression, diabetes, and chronic pain",
abstract = "Systematic reviews (SRs) have the potential to contribute uniquely to the evaluation of sex and gender differences (termed {"}sex effects{"}). This article describes the reporting of sex effects by SRs on interventions for depression, type 2 diabetes mellitus, and chronic pain conditions (chronic low back pain, knee osteoarthritis, and fibromyalgia). It includes SRs published since 1 October 2009 that evaluate medications, behavioral interventions, exercise, quality improvement, and some condition-specific treatments. The reporting of sex effects by primary randomized, controlled trials is also examined. Of 313 eligible SRs (86 for depression, 159 for type 2 diabetes mellitus, and 68 for chronic pain), few (n = 29) reported sex effects. Most SRs reporting sex effects used metaregression, whereas 9 SRs used subgroup analysis or individual-patient data meta-analysis. The proportion of SRs reporting the sex distribution of primary studies varied from a low of 31{\%} (n = 8) for low back pain to a high of 68{\%} (n = 23) for fibromyalgia. Primary randomized, controlled trials also infrequently reported sex effects, and most lacked an adequate sample size to examine them. Therefore, all SRs should report the proportion of women enrolled in primary studies and evaluate sex effects using appropriate methods whenever power is adequate. {\circledC} 2016 American College of Physicians.",
keywords = "Article, chronic pain, clinical trial (topic), data synthesis, depression, diabetes mellitus, evidence based practice, funding, human, intervention study, meta analysis (topic), nonhuman, priority journal, program evaluation, quality control, randomized controlled trial (topic), sex, sex ratio, systematic review, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, female, literature, low back pain, male, sex difference, Chronic Pain, Depression, Female, Humans, Low Back Pain, Male, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Review Literature as Topic, Sex Factors",
author = "W. Duan-Porter and K.M. Goldstein and J.R. McDuffie and J.M. Hughes and M.E.B. Clowse and R.S. Klap and V. Masilamani and N.M.A. LaPointe and A. Nagi and J.M. Gierisch and J.W. Williams",
note = "Cited By :4 Export Date: 26 December 2018 CODEN: AIMEA Correspondence Address: Duan-Porter, W.; Durham Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Duke University, School of Medicine, 411 West Chapel Hill Street, United States; email: wei.duan-porter@duke.edu",
year = "2016",
doi = "10.7326/M15-2877",
language = "English",
volume = "165",
pages = "184--193",
journal = "Annals of Internal Medicine",
issn = "0003-4819",
publisher = "American College of Physicians",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Reporting of sex effects by systematic reviews on interventions for depression, diabetes, and chronic pain

AU - Duan-Porter, W.

AU - Goldstein, K.M.

AU - McDuffie, J.R.

AU - Hughes, J.M.

AU - Clowse, M.E.B.

AU - Klap, R.S.

AU - Masilamani, V.

AU - LaPointe, N.M.A.

AU - Nagi, A.

AU - Gierisch, J.M.

AU - Williams, J.W.

N1 - Cited By :4 Export Date: 26 December 2018 CODEN: AIMEA Correspondence Address: Duan-Porter, W.; Durham Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Duke University, School of Medicine, 411 West Chapel Hill Street, United States; email: wei.duan-porter@duke.edu

PY - 2016

Y1 - 2016

N2 - Systematic reviews (SRs) have the potential to contribute uniquely to the evaluation of sex and gender differences (termed "sex effects"). This article describes the reporting of sex effects by SRs on interventions for depression, type 2 diabetes mellitus, and chronic pain conditions (chronic low back pain, knee osteoarthritis, and fibromyalgia). It includes SRs published since 1 October 2009 that evaluate medications, behavioral interventions, exercise, quality improvement, and some condition-specific treatments. The reporting of sex effects by primary randomized, controlled trials is also examined. Of 313 eligible SRs (86 for depression, 159 for type 2 diabetes mellitus, and 68 for chronic pain), few (n = 29) reported sex effects. Most SRs reporting sex effects used metaregression, whereas 9 SRs used subgroup analysis or individual-patient data meta-analysis. The proportion of SRs reporting the sex distribution of primary studies varied from a low of 31% (n = 8) for low back pain to a high of 68% (n = 23) for fibromyalgia. Primary randomized, controlled trials also infrequently reported sex effects, and most lacked an adequate sample size to examine them. Therefore, all SRs should report the proportion of women enrolled in primary studies and evaluate sex effects using appropriate methods whenever power is adequate. © 2016 American College of Physicians.

AB - Systematic reviews (SRs) have the potential to contribute uniquely to the evaluation of sex and gender differences (termed "sex effects"). This article describes the reporting of sex effects by SRs on interventions for depression, type 2 diabetes mellitus, and chronic pain conditions (chronic low back pain, knee osteoarthritis, and fibromyalgia). It includes SRs published since 1 October 2009 that evaluate medications, behavioral interventions, exercise, quality improvement, and some condition-specific treatments. The reporting of sex effects by primary randomized, controlled trials is also examined. Of 313 eligible SRs (86 for depression, 159 for type 2 diabetes mellitus, and 68 for chronic pain), few (n = 29) reported sex effects. Most SRs reporting sex effects used metaregression, whereas 9 SRs used subgroup analysis or individual-patient data meta-analysis. The proportion of SRs reporting the sex distribution of primary studies varied from a low of 31% (n = 8) for low back pain to a high of 68% (n = 23) for fibromyalgia. Primary randomized, controlled trials also infrequently reported sex effects, and most lacked an adequate sample size to examine them. Therefore, all SRs should report the proportion of women enrolled in primary studies and evaluate sex effects using appropriate methods whenever power is adequate. © 2016 American College of Physicians.

KW - Article

KW - chronic pain

KW - clinical trial (topic)

KW - data synthesis

KW - depression

KW - diabetes mellitus

KW - evidence based practice

KW - funding

KW - human

KW - intervention study

KW - meta analysis (topic)

KW - nonhuman

KW - priority journal

KW - program evaluation

KW - quality control

KW - randomized controlled trial (topic)

KW - sex

KW - sex ratio

KW - systematic review

KW - Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2

KW - female

KW - literature

KW - low back pain

KW - male

KW - sex difference

KW - Chronic Pain

KW - Depression

KW - Female

KW - Humans

KW - Low Back Pain

KW - Male

KW - Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic

KW - Review Literature as Topic

KW - Sex Factors

U2 - 10.7326/M15-2877

DO - 10.7326/M15-2877

M3 - Article

VL - 165

SP - 184

EP - 193

JO - Annals of Internal Medicine

JF - Annals of Internal Medicine

SN - 0003-4819

IS - 3

ER -