Lack of sex-related analysis and reporting in Cochrane Reviews: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Sex-specific analysis and reporting may allow a better understanding of intervention effects and can support the decision-making process. Well-conducted systematic reviews (SRs), like those carried out by the Cochrane Collaboration, provide clinical responses transparently and stress gaps of knowledge. This study aimed to describe the extent to which sex is analysed and reported in a cross-section of Cochrane SRs of interventions, and assess the association with the gender of main authorships. METHODS: We searched SRs published during 2018 within the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. An investigator appraised the sex-related analysis and reporting across sections of SRs and collected data on gender and country of affiliation of the review first and last authors, and a second checked for accuracy. We conducted descriptive statistics and bivariate logistic regression to explore the association between the gender of the authors and sex-related analysis and reporting. RESULTS: Six hundred and ten Cochrane SRs were identified. After removing those that met no eligibility criteria, 516 reviews of interventions were included. Fifty-six reviews included sex-related reporting in the abstract, 90 considered sex in their design, 380 provided sex-disaggregated descriptive data, 142 reported main outcomes or performed subgroup analyses by sex, and 76 discussed the potential impact of sex or the lack of such on the interpretations of findings. Women represented 53.1 and 42.2% of first and last authorships, respectively. Women authors (in first and last position) had a higher possibility to report sex in at least one of the review sections (OR 2.05; CI 95% 1.12-3.75, P=0.020) than having none. CONCLUSIONS: Sex consideration amongst Cochrane SRs was frequently missing. Structured guidance to sex-related analysis and reporting is needed to enhance the external validity of findings. Likewise, including gender diversity within the research workforce and relevant authorship positions may foster equity in the evidence generated.

Sex as a prognostic factor for mortality in critically ill adults with sepsis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the role of sex as an independent prognostic factor for mortality in patients with sepsis admitted to intensive care units (ICUs). DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO Clinical Trials Registry from inception to 17 July 2020. STUDY SELECTION: Studies evaluating independent associations between sex and mortality in critically ill adults with sepsis controlling for at least one of five core covariate domains prespecified following a literature search and consensus among experts. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two authors independently extracted and assessed the risk of bias using Quality In Prognosis Studies tool. Meta-analysis was performed by pooling adjusted estimates. The Grades of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach was used to rate the certainty of evidence. RESULTS: From 14 304 records, 13 studies (80 520 participants) were included. Meta-analysis did not find sex-based differences in all-cause hospital mortality (OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.32; very low-certainty evidence) and all-cause ICU mortality (OR 1.19, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.78; very low-certainty evidence). However, females presented higher 28-day all-cause mortality (OR 1.18, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.32; very low-certainty evidence) and lower 1-year all-cause mortality (OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.98; low-certainty evidence). There was a moderate risk of bias in the domain adjustment for other prognostic factors in six studies, and the certainty of evidence was further affected by inconsistency and imprecision. CONCLUSION: The prognostic independent effect of sex on all-cause hospital mortality, 28-day all-cause mortality and all-cause ICU mortality for critically ill adults with sepsis was uncertain. Female sex may be associated with decreased 1-year all-cause mortality. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019145054.

Female under-representation in sepsis studies: a bibliometric analysis of systematic reviews and guidelines.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of the study was to assess female representation in primary studies underpinning recommendations from clinical guidelines and systematic reviews for sepsis treatment in adults. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We conducted a bibliometric study. We removed studies pertaining to sex-specific diseases and included quasirandomized, randomized clinical trials (RCTs), and observational studies. We analyzed the female participation-to-prevalence ratio (PPR). RESULTS: We included 277 studies published between 1973 and 2017. For the 246 studies for which sex data were available, the share of female participation was 40%. Females overall were under-represented relative to their share of the sepsis population (PPR 0.78). Disaggregated results were reported by sex in 57 studies. In univariate analyses, non-intensive care unit setting and consideration of other social health determinants were significantly associated with greater female participation (P < 0.001 and P = 0.023, respectively). In regression models, studies published in 1996 or later were likely to report sex, while RCTs were unlikely to do so (P = 0.019 and P < 0.001, respectively). CONCLUSION: Our study points to female underenrollment in sepsis studies. Primary studies underpinning recommendations for sepsis have poorly reported their findings by sex.

Evaluation of the role of sex as a prognostic factor in critically ill adults with sepsis: systematic review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Sepsis is a leading cause of mortality in critically ill patients. Recently, it has been recognised that sex may contribute to a differential risk for developing sepsis and it remains uncertain if the prognosis of sepsis varies between the sexes. The aim of this systematic review is to summarise the available evidence to assess the role of sex as a prognostic factor in patients with sepsis managed in the intensive care unit (ICU). METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a systematic review protocol of prognostic studies of sex in patients with sepsis managed in the ICU. The primary outcomes include all-cause hospital mortality and all-cause hospital mortality during the first 28 days. The secondary outcomes include all-cause hospital mortality during the first 7 days and all-cause mortality at 1 year. We will conduct a search strategy based on the population (sepsis), the prognostic factor (sex), the outcome of interest (mortality) and prognostic study methods. We will search in the following databases up to December 2019: MEDLINE Ovid (from 1976), Embase Elsevier (from 1974), Web of Science and two trial registries. We will impose no language restrictions. Two authors will independently screen titles, abstracts and full-text articles for eligibility of studies, and subsequently extract data. Two authors will independently assess the risk of bias of each study using the Quality in Prognostic Studies (QUIPS) tool. If possible, we will carry out a meta-analysis to provide a pooled prognostic effect estimate for each outcome. We will use the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation system to assess the quality of evidence. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval will not be required. Findings from this review will be reported in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Additionally, the results will be disseminated at conferences and in the mass media. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019145054.

Does Progressive Introduction of Benznidazole Reduce the Chance of Adverse Events in the Treatment of Chagas Disease?

In this retrospective cohort study, we aimed to assess whether introducing benznidazole at escalating doses reduces the probability of adverse events or treatment discontinuation compared with a full-dose scheme. We collected data from patients who had chronic Trypanosoma cruzi infection and underwent treatment from July 2008 to January 2017 in a referral center in Madrid. Dose was adjusted to body weight (5 mg/kg/day), with treatment introduction with full dose or escalating dose according to local consensus and protocols. Among the 62 patients treated, benznidazole was introduced at full dose in 28 patients and on escalating dose in the remaining 34. We found no statistical differences in the number of adverse events, treatment discontinuations, days of treatment, or sociodemographic profiles. There is insufficient evidence to support escalating dose as a strategy for reducing the adverse effects of benznidazole. Further research is needed to evaluate this approach.