Dataset Information

Gender Differences in International Cardiology Guideline Authorship: A Comparison of the US, Canadian, and European Cardiology Guidelines From 2006 to 2020.

ABSTRACT: Background Women continue to be underrepresented in cardiology and even more so in leadership positions. We evaluated the trends and gender differences in the guideline writing groups of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA), Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS), and European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guidelines from 2006 to 2020. Methods and Results We extracted all guidelines authors from 2006 to 2020, assessed their gender from publicly available profiles, and compared differences based on subspecialties and specific societies. Stratified and trend analyses were performed using χ² and average annual percentage change/average 5 year percentage change. A total of 80 ACC/AHA (1288 authors [28% women]), 64 CCS (988 authors [26% women]), and 59 ESC (1157 authors [16% women]) guidelines were analyzed. A significant increase in inclusion of women was seen in ACC/AHA (12.6% [2006] to 42.6% [2020]; average annual percentage change, 6.6% [2.3% to 11.1%]; P=0.005) and ESC (7.1% [2006] to 25.8% [2020]; average annual percentage change, 6.6% [0.2% to 13.5%]; P=0.04), but the trend remained similar in CCS (20.6% [2006] to 36.3% [2020]; average annual percentage change, -0.1% (-3.7% to 3.5%); P=0.94), guideline authors. More women were coauthors in the ACC/AHA and ESC guidelines when women were chairs of guidelines. There was a persistent disparity of women among guideline authors for general cardiology and all subspecialties, except for pediatric cardiology and heart failure guidelines. The appointment of women authors as a chair was significantly low in all societies (22.4% [ACC/AHA], 16.9% [CCS], and 7.2% [ESC]; P=0.008). Conclusions There is a significant disparity in the inclusion of women on all national guideline committees, in addition to serving as a chair of cardiology guidelines. Further advocacy is required to promote equity, diversity, and inclusion in our cardiology guidelines globally.

SUBMITTER: Rai D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9075085 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:This is an update to the 2014 Canadian Hereditary Angioedema Guideline with an expanded scope to include the management of hereditary angioedema (HAE) patients worldwide. It is a collaboration of Canadian and international HAE experts and patient groups led by the Canadian Hereditary Angioedema Network. The objective of this guideline is to provide evidence-based recommendations, using the GRADE system, for the management of patients with HAE. This includes the treatment of attacks, short-term prophylaxis, long-term prophylaxis, and recommendations for self-administration, individualized therapy, quality of life, and comprehensive care. New to the 2019 version of this guideline are sections covering the diagnosis and recommended therapies for acute treatment in HAE patients with normal C1-INH, as well as sections on pregnant and paediatric patients, patient associations and an HAE registry. Hereditary angioedema results in random and often unpredictable attacks of painful swelling typically affecting the extremities, bowel mucosa, genitals, face and upper airway. Attacks are associated with significant functional impairment, decreased health-related quality of life, and mortality in the case of laryngeal attacks. Caring for patients with HAE can be challenging due to the complexity of this disease. The care of patients with HAE in Canada, as in many countries, continues to be neither optimal nor uniform. It lags behind some other countries where there are more organized models for HAE management, and greater availability of additional licensed therapeutic options. It is anticipated that providing this guideline to caregivers, policy makers, patients, and advocates will not only optimize the management of HAE, but also promote the importance of individualized care. The primary target users of this guideline are healthcare providers who are managing patients with HAE. Other healthcare providers who may use this guideline are emergency and intensive care physicians, primary care physicians, gastroenterologists, dentists, otolaryngologists, paediatricians, and gynaecologists who will encounter patients with HAE and need to be aware of this condition. Hospital administrators, insurers and policy makers may also find this guideline helpful.

Project description:ObjectivesTo investigate authors' awareness and use of authorship guidelines, and to assess their perceptions of the fairness of authorship decisions.DesignA cross-sectional online survey.Setting and participantsCorresponding authors of research papers submitted in 2014 to 18 BMJ journals.Results3859/12 646 (31%) researchers responded. They worked in 93 countries and varied in research experience. Of these, 1326 (34%) reported their institution had an authorship policy providing criteria for authorship; 2871 (74%) were 'very familiar' with the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors' authorship criteria and 3358 (87%) reported that guidelines were beneficial when preparing manuscripts. Furthermore, 2609 (68%) reported that their use was 'sometimes' or 'frequently' encouraged in their research setting. However, 2859 respondents (74%) reported that they had been involved in a study at least once where someone was added as an author who had not contributed substantially (honorary authorship), and 1305 (34%) where someone was not listed as an author but had contributed substantially (ghost authorship). Only 740 (19%) reported that they had never experienced either honorary or ghost authorship; 1115 (29%) reported that they had experienced both at least once. There was no clear pattern in experience of authorship misappropriation by continent. For their last coauthored article, 2187 (57%) reported that explicit authorship criteria had been used to determine eligibility, and 3088 (80%) felt that the decision made was fair. When institutions frequently encouraged use of authorship guidelines, authorship eligibility was more likely to be discussed early (817 of 1410, 58%) and perceived as fairer (1273 of 1410, 90%) compared with infrequent encouragement (974 of 2449, 40%, and 1891 of 2449, 74%).ConclusionsDespite a high level of awareness of authorship guidelines and criteria, these are not so widely used; more explicit encouragement of their use by institutions may result in more favourable use of guidelines by authors.

Project description:ImportanceClinical decisions are ideally based on evidence generated from multiple randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating clinical outcomes, but historically, few clinical guideline recommendations have been based entirely on this type of evidence.ObjectiveTo determine the class and level of evidence (LOE) supporting current major cardiovascular society guideline recommendations, and changes in LOE over time.Data sourcesCurrent American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) and European Society of Cardiology (ESC) clinical guideline documents (2008-2018), as identified on cardiovascular society websites, and immediate predecessors to these guideline documents (1999-2014), as referenced in current guideline documents.Study selectionComprehensive guideline documents including recommendations organized by class and LOE.Data extraction and synthesisThe number of recommendations and the distribution of LOE (A [supported by data from multiple RCTs or a single, large RCT], B [supported by data from observational studies or a single RCT], and C [supported by expert opinion only]) were determined for each guideline document.Main outcomes and measuresThe proportion of guideline recommendations supported by evidence from multiple RCTs (LOE A).ResultsAcross 26 current ACC/AHA guidelines (2930 recommendations; median, 121 recommendations per guideline [25th-75th percentiles, 76-155]), 248 recommendations (8.5%) were classified as LOE A, 1465 (50.0%) as LOE B, and 1217 (41.5%) as LOE C. The median proportion of LOE A recommendations was 7.9% (25th-75th percentiles, 0.9%-15.2%). Across 25 current ESC guideline documents (3399 recommendations; median, 130 recommendations per guideline [25th-75th percentiles, 111-154]), 484 recommendations (14.2%) were classified as LOE A, 1053 (31.0%) as LOE B, and 1862 (54.8%) as LOE C. When comparing current guidelines with prior versions, the proportion of recommendations that were LOE A did not increase in either ACC/AHA (median, 9.0% [current] vs 11.7% [prior]) or ESC guidelines (median, 15.1% [current] vs 17.6% [prior]).Conclusions and relevanceAmong recommendations in major cardiovascular society guidelines, only a small percentage were supported by evidence from multiple RCTs or a single, large RCT. This pattern does not appear to have meaningfully improved from 2008 to 2018.

Project description:The American College of Cardiology (ACC) and European Society of Cardiology/European Atherosclerosis Society (ESC/EAS) have recently published recommendations for the use of proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin-9 (PCSK9) inhibitors in situations of very high risk. We aim to assess in the real world the suitability of PCSK9 inhibitors for acute coronary syndromes.We analyzed a prospective Swiss cohort of 2023 patients hospitalized for acute coronary syndromes between 2009 and 2014 with available data for low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and lipid-lowering therapy at 1 year. Clinical familial hypercholesterolemia was defined using the Dutch Lipid Clinic Network algorithm as unlikely, possible, probable, or definite. We simulated a fixed relative reduction of 24% in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels at 1 year in all patients not treated with ezetimibe, irrespective of the low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels and statin regimen. At 1 year, 94.3% of patients were treated with statin, 5.8% with ezetimibe, and 35.8% of patients had on-target low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels (<1.8 mmol/L); 25.6% met criteria for possible or probable/definite familial hypercholesterolemia. After a simulation of the lipid-lowering effect of ezetimibe, the proportion of patients who would be eligible for PCSK9 inhibitors at 1 year was 13.4% using American College of Cardiology criteria and 2.7% using European Society of Cardiology/European Atherosclerosis Society criteria. Patients with possible or probable/definite familial hypercholesterolemia were more eligible for PCSK9 inhibitors compared with their non-familial hypercholesterolemia counterparts: 27.6% versus 8.8% according to American College of Cardiology criteria and 6.6% versus 1.8% according to European Society of Cardiology/European Atherosclerosis Society criteria (P<0.001).Recommendations made by the American College of Cardiology guidelines would lead to 5-fold higher eligibility rates for PCSK9 inhibitors compared to the European Society of Cardiology/European Atherosclerosis Society consensus statement in acute coronary syndrome patients.

Project description:AIMS:Reviews of clinical practice guidelines have repeatedly concluded that only a minority of guideline recommendations are supported by high-quality evidence from randomised controlled trials. The aim of this study is to evaluate whether these findings apply to the whole cardiovascular evidence base or specific recommendation types and actions. METHODS:All recommendations from current European Society of Cardiology guidelines were extracted with their class (I, treatment is beneficial; II, treatment is possibly beneficial; III, treatment is harmful) and level of evidence (A, multiple randomised controlled trials/meta-analyses; B, single randomised controlled trials/large observational studies; C, expert opinion/small studies). Recommendations were categorised by type (therapeutic, diagnostic, other) and actions (e.g. pharmaceutical intervention/non-invasive imaging/test). RESULTS:In total, 3531 recommendations (median 128, interquartile range 108-150) were extracted from 27 guidelines. Therapeutic recommendations comprised 2545 (72.1%) recommendations, 411 (16.1%) were supported by level of evidence A, 833 (32.7%) by B and 1301 (51.1%) by C. Class I/III (should/should not) recommendations on minimally invasive interventions were most supported by level of evidence A (55/183, 30.1%) (B [70/183, 38.3%], C [58/183, 31.7%]), while class I/III recommendations on open surgical interventions were least supported by level of evidence A (15/164, 9.1%) (B [34/164, 20.7%], C [115/164, 70.1%]). Of all (831, 23.5%) diagnostic recommendations, just 44/503 (8.7%) class I/III recommendations were supported by level of evidence A (B (125/503, 24.9%), C (334/503, 66.4%)). CONCLUSION:Evidence levels supporting European Society of Cardiology guideline recommendations differ widely between recommendation types and actions. Attributing to this variability are different evidence requirements, therapeutic/diagnostic recommendations, different feasibility levels for trials (e.g. open surgical/pharmacological) and many off-topic/policy recommendations based on expert opinion.

Dataset Information

Gender Differences in International Cardiology Guideline Authorship: A Comparison of the US, Canadian, and European Cardiology Guidelines From 2006 to 2020.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets