Dataset Information

Reporting of Race and Ethnicity in the Ophthalmology Literature in 2019.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

The description of racial and ethnic data in human trials is relatively unregulated, leading to potential confusion with and inconsistent reporting of these data.

Objective

To determine the frequency and use of racial and ethnic data in the ophthalmology literature in 2019.

Design, setting, and participants

This cross-sectional study included all full-length human studies published between January and December 2019 in the American Journal of Ophthalmology, JAMA Ophthalmology, and Ophthalmology.

Main outcomes and measures

Whether race or ethnicity was included in the data or analysis, how the categorization was described in the methods and results, specific racial and ethnic categories used, and whether and how the categories were determined.

Results

A total of 547 articles were identified during the study period, 484 (88% ± 2.7%) of which reported background demographic information, including patient age and sex. Only 233 (43% ± 4.1%) reported race and/or ethnicity. Of those articles, 72 (31% ± 5.9%) categorized it as race, 51 (22% ± 5.3%) ethnicity, 56 (24% ± 5.4%) race/ethnicity, 21 (9% ± 3.7%) race and ethnicity, 12 (5% ± 3.0%) descent, 12 (5% ± 2.9%) population, and 5 (2% ± 2.0%) ancestry; in 21 (9% ± 3.8%) it was not defined. Only 30 studies (13% ± 4.4%) described how it was determined in the methods or results, most frequently by self-report (77% ± 3.9%). A total of 78 races and/or ethnicities were defined.

Conclusions and relevance

While most articles during the study period reported background demographic information, few included race and ethnicity and only a fraction of those described how these data were determined. The categories used were heterogeneous and often inconsistent. These findings suggest the need for increased and more standardized reporting of ethnic and racial demographic data in the ophthalmology literature.

SUBMITTER: Moore DB

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7303899 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe majority of maternal deaths occur in the postpartum period. We sought to compare postpartum readmission by race and ethnicity to better understand whether there are disparities in maternal health in the postpartum period as indicated by readmission to the hospital.ObjectiveThis study aimed to use state-wide Maryland data to identify postpartum readmission rates by race and ethnicity, as well as the major risk factors, indications, and timing of readmission.Study designIn this retrospective study (2016-2019), childbirth hospitalizations for patients of childbearing age were identified from the Maryland State Inpatient Database, Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Indication for readmission was described. Multivariable logistic regression models were employed to determine racial and ethnic differences in postpartum readmissions, adjusting for maternal and obstetrical characteristics.ResultsAmong total deliveries (n=260,778), 3914 patients (1.5%) were readmitted within 60 days of delivery. The most common primary diagnoses at readmission were hypertension and infection. The prevalence of readmission was 1.2% (1306/111,325) for White patients, 2.3% (1786/79,412) for Black patients, 1.2% (485/40,862) for Hispanic patients and 1.2% (337/29,179) for patients of Other race or ethnicity (P<.0001). Black patients had the highest rates of readmission for hypertensive disorders as compared with all other races (37%, P<.0001). In adjusted models, Black patients were more likely to be readmitted than White patients (odds ratio, 1.64; confidence interval, 1.52-1.77). The majority of all readmissions occurred in the first week after delivery with Black patients having higher rates of readmission in the second week relative to all other groups (P<.0001).ConclusionHypertension is a leading cause of postpartum readmission in Maryland. Black patients were more likely to be readmitted for hypertensive disorders of pregnancy and to have delayed readmission relative to other race or ethnic groups. Maryland public health officials should address disparities with interventions targeting racial and ethnic minorities, patients at risk for hypertensive disorders, and barriers to timely care.

Project description:BackgroundSystemic progress in improving trial representation is uncertain, and previous analyses of minority trial participation have been limited to small cohorts with limited exploration of driving factors.MethodsWe analyzed detailed trial records from all US clinical trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov from March 2000 to March 2020. Minority enrollment was compared to 2010 US Census demographic estimates using Wilcoxon test. We utilized logistic regression and generalized linear regression with a logit link to assess the association of possible drivers (including trials' funding source, size, phase, and design) with trials' disclosure of and amount of minority enrollment respectively.FindingsAmong 20,692 US-based trials with reported results (representing ~4·76 million enrollees), only 43% (8,871/20,692) reported any race/ethnicity data. The majority of enrollees were White (median 79·7%; interquartile range [IQR] 61·9-90·0%), followed by Black (10·0%; IQR 2·5-23·5%), Hispanic/Latino (6·0%; IQR 0·43-15·4%), Asian (1·0%; IQR 0·0-4·1%), and American Indian (0·0%; IQR 0·0-0·2%). Median combined enrollment of minority race/ethnicity groups (Black, Hispanic/Latino, Asian, American Indian, Other/Multi) was below census estimates (27·6%) (p<0·001) however increased at an annual rate of 1·7%. Industry and Academic funding were negatively associated with race/ethnicity reporting (Industry adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 0·42, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0·38 to 0·46, p<0.0001; Academic aOR: 0·45, CI: 0·41 to 0·50, p<0.0001). Industry also had a negative association with the proportion of minority ethnicity enrollees (aOR: 0·69, CI: 0·60 to 0·79) compared to US Government-funded trials.InterpretationOver the past two decades, the majority of US trials in ClinicalTrials.gov do not report race/ethnicity enrollment data, and minorities are underrepresented in trials with modest improvement over time.FundingStanford Medical Scholars Research Funding, the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, NIH (1K01HL144607) and the American Heart Association/Robert Wood Johnson Medical Faculty Development Program.

Project description:Despite increasing diversity in research recruitment, research finding reporting by gender, race, ethnicity, and sex has remained up to the discretion of authors. This study developped and piloted tools to standardize the inclusive reporting of gender, race, ethnicity, and sex in health research. A modified Delphi approach was used to develop standardized tools for the inclusive reporting of gender, race, ethnicity, and sex in health research. Health research, social epidemiology, sociology, and medical anthropology experts from 11 different universities participated in the Delphi process. The tools were pilot tested on 85 health research manuscripts in top health research journals to determine inter-rater reliability of the tools. The tools each spanned five dimensions for both sex and gender as well as race and ethnicity: Author inclusiveness, Participant inclusiveness, Nomenclature reporting, Descriptive reporting, and Outcomes reporting for each subpopulation. The sex and gender tool had a median score of 6 and a range of 1-15 out of 16 possible points. The percent agreement between reviewers piloting the sex and gender tool was 82%. The interrater reliability or average Cohen's Kappa was 0.54 with a standard deviation of 0.33 demonstrating moderate agreement. The race and ethnicity tool had a median score of 1 and a range of 0-15 out of 16 possible points. Race and ethnicity were both reported in only 25.8% of studies evaluated. Most studies that reported race reported only the largest subgroups; White, Black, and Latinx. The percent agreement between reviewers piloting the race and ethnicity tool was 84 and average Cohen's Kappa was 0.61 with a standard deviation of 0.38 demonstrating substantial agreement. While the overall dimension scores were low (indicating low inclusivity), the interrater reliability measures indicated moderate to substantial agreement for the respective tools. Efforts in recruitment alone will not provide more inclusive literature without improving reporting.

Project description:ObjectiveVulnerable populations, including women and racial and ethnic minorities, have been historically underrepresented in clinical trials. We, therefore, studied the demographics of patients enrolled in pivotal endovascular aortic device trials in the United States.MethodsWe queried the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) medical devices database for all FDA-approved endografts for the treatment of aortic aneurysms, transections, and dissections from September 1999 to November 2021. These included abdominal endovascular aortic repair (EVAR), thoracic EVAR (TEVAR), fenestrated EVAR (FEVAR) devices, and dissection stents. Multiple cases of approval for expanded indications were included separately. The primary outcomes included the proportion of trials reporting participant sex, race, and ethnicity and the proportion of enrolled participants across sex, racial, and ethnic groups.ResultsThe FDA provided 29 approvals from 29 trials of 24 devices: 15 EVAR devices (52%), 12 TEVAR devices (41%), 1 FEVAR device (3.4%), and 1 dissection stent (3.4%). These trials had included 4046 patients. Of the 29 trials, all had reported on the sex of the participants, and the median female enrollment was 21% (interquartile range [IQR], 11%-34%). The EVAR trials had the lowest female enrollment (11%; IQR, 8.7%-13%) compared with 41% (IQR, 27%-45%) in the TEVAR trials, 21% in the FEVAR trial, and 34% in the dissection stent trial (P < .01 for the difference). Only 52% of the trials had reported the three most common racial groups (White, Black, Asian), and only 48% had reported Hispanic ethnicity. The TEVAR trials were the most likely to report all three racial groups and Hispanic ethnicity (92% and 75%, respectively), while the EVAR trials had the lowest reporting rates (13% and 20%, respectively). Where reported, the median enrollment of racial and ethnic groups across the trials was as follows: Black patients, 9.8% (FEVAR, 0%; EVAR, 1.9%; TEVAR, 12%; dissection stent, 25%; P = .01); Asian patients, 2.4% (EVAR, 0.6%; FEVAR, 2.4%; TEVAR, 2.5%; dissection stent, 11%; P = .24); and Hispanic patients, 3.8% (EVAR, 1.3%; FEVAR, 2.4%; TEVAR, 3.9%; dissection stent, 4.1%; P = .75).ConclusionsRacial and ethnic minority groups were underrepresented and underreported in pivotal aortic device trials that led to FDA approval. Female patients were also underrepresented in these aortic trials, especially for EVAR. These data suggest the need for standardization of reporting practices and minimum thresholds for minority and female participation in pivotal trials to promote equitable representation.

Project description:BACKGROUND: Standards for reporting clinical trials have improved the transparency of patient-important research. The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) published an extension to address noninferiority and equivalence trials. We aimed to determine the reporting quality of prostaglandin noninferiority and equivalence trials in the treatment of glaucoma. METHODS: We searched, independently and in duplicate, 6 electronic databases for eligible trials evaluating prostaglandins. We abstracted data on reporting of methodological criteria, including reporting of per-protocol [PP] and intention-to-treat [ITT] analysis, sample size estimation with margins, type of statistical analysis conducted, efficacy summaries, and use of hyperemia measures. RESULTS: Trials involving the four major prostaglandin groups (latanoprost, travoprost, bimatoprost, unoprostone) were analyzed. We included 36 noninferiority and 11 equivalence trials. Seventeen out of the included 47 trials (36%, 95% Confidence Intervals [CI]: 24-51) were crossover designs. Only 3 studies (6%, 95% CI: 2-17) reported a presented results of both ITT and PP populations. Twelve studies (26%, 95% CI: 15-39) presented only ITT results but mentioned that PP population had similar results. Thirteen trials (28%, 95% CI: 17-42) presented only PP results with no mention of ITT population results while 17 studies (36%, 95% CI: 24-51) presented only ITT results with no mention of PP population results. Thirty-four (72%, 95% CI: 58-83) of studies adequately described their margin of noninferiority/equivalence. Sequence generation was reported in 22/47 trials (47%, 95% CI: 33-61). Allocation concealment was reported in only 10/47 (21%, 95% CI: 12-35) of the trials. Thirty-five studies (74%, 95% CI: 60-85) employed masking of at least two groups, 4/47 (9%, 95% CI: 3-20) masked only patients and 8/47 (17%, 95% CI: 9-30) were open label studies. Eight (17%, 95% CI: 9-30) of the 47 trials employed a combined test of noninferiority and superiority. We also found 6 differing methods of evaluating hyperemia. CONCLUSION: The quality of reporting noninferiority/equivalency trials in the field of glaucoma is markedly heterogeneous. The adoption of the extended CONSORT statement by journals will potentially improve the transparency of this field.