Sex-Specific Analysis Is Lacking in Abstracts Presented at Arthroscopy Association of North America and American Orthopaedic Society for Sports Medicine Annual Meetings From 2016 to 2019.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the presence of sex-specific analysis (SSA) in abstracts accepted for podium presentation at the Arthroscopy Association of North America (AANA) and American Orthopaedic Society for Sports Medicine (AOSSM) annual meetings from 2016 to 2019. METHODS: Abstracts accepted for podium presentation at the AANA and AOSSM annual meetings from 2016 to 2019 were selected for review. Studies that included sex as a variable in a multifactorial statistical model were considered to have performed adequate SSA. Secondary data collected included whether the abstract had a female lead or senior author, the degrees of the female authors, and the anatomic focuses of studies with SSA. RESULTS: Of the 891 total abstracts accepted for podium presentation at the AANA and AOSSM annual meetings from 2016 to 2019, 90 (10%) included SSA. There were 284 AANA abstracts, 24 (8%) of which reported SSA. Of the 607 AOSSM abstracts, 66 (11%) reported SSA. There were 43 female first authors (15%) and 33 female senior authors (12%) of the AANA abstracts compared with 92 female first authors (15%) and 39 female senior authors (6%) of the AOSSM abstracts. Of the 891 total abstracts, 135 (15%) listed a female lead author and 72 (8%) had a female senior author. Of the 135 female first authors, 92 (68%) had an M.D., whereas 40 of the 72 female senior authors (56%) had an M.D. Analysis of all abstracts combined showed a positive correlation between SSA and a female first author (Pearson correlation coefficient = 0.035, P = .147), as well as between SSA and a female senior author (Pearson correlation coefficient = 0.052, P = .059). CONCLUSIONS: From 2016 to 2019, only 10% of abstracts accepted for podium presentation at the AANA and AOSSM annual meetings included SSA. Altogether, women represented 15% of first authors and 8% of senior authors. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This study highlights the low percentage of SSA in abstracts presented at the AANA and AOSSM annual meetings from 2016 to 2019. Future studies should attempt to perform SSA when relevant to better evaluate differences in outcomes between male and female patients.

Sex- and Gender-specific Analysis in Orthopaedic Studies.

BACKGROUND: Orthopaedic studies have reported the prevalence of injuries and outcomes after treatment in men and women patients, and although these differences have been recognized, few studies have evaluated for gender-specific injury patterns, disease progression, and treatment outcomes. A thorough understanding of gender-related differences is important to better individualize treatment and improve outcomes. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: In this study, we sought (1) to determine the proportion of studies published in six orthopaedic journals that provided sex- or gender-specific analyses in 2016 and whether a difference was found in outcomes between men and women and (2) to evaluate whether this proportion varied across several orthopaedic subspecialty journals or between general orthopaedic journals and subspecialty journals. METHODS: Six leading orthopaedic surgery journals were selected for review, including two general orthopaedic journals (Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery and Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®) and four subspecialty journals (American Journal of Sports Medicine, Journal of Arthroplasty, Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery, and Spine). Journal issues published in the even-numbered months of 2016 were reviewed for clinical randomized controlled, cohort, and case-control studies in which women were a part of the study population. A total of 712 studies evaluating 24,607,597 patients met the criteria and were included in our review of publications from 2016. The selected studies were stratified based on whether gender was a variable in a multifactorial statistical model. Outcomes of interest included the proportion of patients who were women and the presence or absence of a gender-specific analysis. These endpoints were compared between journals. RESULTS: Overall, 55% (13,565,773 of 24,607,597) of patients analyzed in these studies were women. Only 34% (241 of 712) of the studies published in 2016 included gender as variable in a multifactorial statistical model. Of these, 39% (93 of 241) demonstrated a difference in the outcomes between patients who were men and women. The Journal of Arthroplasty had the greatest percentage of patients who were women (60%, 9,251,068 of 15,557,187) and the American Journal of Sports Medicine had the lowest (44%, 1,027,857 of 2,357,139; p < 0.001). Orthopaedic subspecialty journals tended to include a greater percentage of women (54%) than did general orthopaedic journals (50%; p = 0.04). CONCLUSION: Currently, it is unclear what percentage of published orthopaedic studies should include a gender-specific analysis. In the current study, more than one-third of publications that performed a gender-specific analysis demonstrated a difference in outcomes between men and women, thereby emphasizing the need to determine when such an analysis is warranted. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Future studies should aim to determine when a gender-specific analysis is necessary to improve the management of orthopaedic injuries in men and women. It is important for investigators at the individual-study level to look for every opportunity to ensure that both men's and women's health needs are met by performing appropriate by-sex and by-gender analyses, but not to perform them when they are unnecessary or inappropriate.

Orthopaedic Physician Attire Influences Patient Perceptions in an Urban Inpatient Setting.

BACKGROUND: Prior research suggests that physician attire has an important effect on patient perceptions, and can influence the patient-physician relationship. Previous studies have established the effect of specialty, location, and setting on patient preferences for physician attire, and the importance of these preferences and perceptions on both the physician-patient relationship and first impressions. To date, no studies have examined the influence of attire in the inpatient orthopaedic surgery setting on these perceptions. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) Do differences in orthopaedic physician attire influence patient confidence in their surgeon, perception of trustworthiness, safety, how caring their physician is, how smart their surgeon is, how well the surgery would go, and how willing they are to discuss personal information with the surgeon? (2) Do patients perceive physicians who are men and women differently with respect to those endpoints? METHODS: Ninety-three of 110 patients undergoing orthopaedic surgery at an urban academic medical center participated in a three-part survey. In the first part, each patient was randomly presented 10 images of both men and women surgeons, each dressed in five different outfits: business attire (BA), a white coat over business attire (WB), scrubs alone (SA), a white coat over scrubs (WS), and casual attire (CA). Respondents rated each image on a five-point Likert scale regarding how confident, trustworthy, safe, caring, and smart the surgeon appeared, how well the surgery would go, and the patient's willingness to discuss personal information with the surgeon. In the second part, the respondent ranked all images, by gender, from the most to least confident based on attire. RESULTS: Pair-wise comparisons for women surgeons demonstrated no difference in patient preference between white coat over business attire compared with white coat over scrubs or scrubs alone, though each was preferable to business attire and casual attire (WS versus WB: mean difference [MD], 0.1 ± 0.6; 95% CI, 0.0-0.2; p = 1.0; WS versus SA: MD, 0.2 ± 0.7; 95% CI, 0-0.3; p = 0.7; WB versus SA: 0.1 ± 0.9; 95% CI, -0.1 to 0.2; p = 1.0). The same results were found when rating the surgeon's perceived intelligence, skill, trust, confidentiality, caring, and safety. In the pair-wise comparisons for male surgeons, white coat over scrubs was not preferred to white coat over business attire, scrubs alone, or business attire (WS versus WB: MD, -0.1 ± 0.6; 95% CI, 0-0.1; p = 1.0; WS versus SA: MD, 0 ± 0.4; 95% CI, -0.2 to 0; p = 1.0; WS versus BA: MD, 0.2 ± 0.8; 95% CI, 0-0.4; p = 0.6). WB and SA were not different (MD, 0.0 ± 0.6; 95% CI, -0.1 to 0.2; p = 1.0), though both were preferred to BA and CA (WB versus BA: MD, 0.3 ± 0.8; 95% CI, 0.1-0.5; p = 0.02; WB versus CA: 1.0 ± 1.0; 95% CI, 0.8-1.2; p < 0.01). We found no difference between SA and BA (MD, 0.3 ± 0.7; 95% CI, 0.1-0.4; p = 0.06). We found that each was preferred to CA (SA versus CA: 0.9 ± 1.0; 95% CI, 0.7-1.2; p < 0.01; BA versus CA: 0.7 ± 1.0; 95% CI, 0.5-0.9; p < 0.01), with similar results in all other categories. When asked to rank all types of attire, patients preferred WS or WB for both men and women surgeons, followed by SA, BA, and CA. CONCLUSIONS: Similar to findings in the outpatient orthopaedic setting, in the inpatient setting, we found patients had a moderate overall preference for physicians wearing a white coat, either over scrubs or business attire, and, to some extent, scrubs alone. Respondents did not show any difference in preference based on the gender of the pictured surgeon. For men and women orthopaedic surgeons in the urban inpatient setting, stereotypical physician's attire such as a white coat over either scrubs or business attire, or even scrubs alone may improve numerous components of the patient-physician relationship and should therefore be strongly considered to enhance overall patient care. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, therapeutic study.