SynthesisBMC medicine2025
Sex and gender considerations in randomized controlled trials in critical care nephrology: a meta-epidemiologic study.
Synthesis in BMC medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The impact of social determinants of health on acute kidney injury.Nature reviews. Nephrology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHow sex and gender are considered in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in critical care nephrology is unclear. We aimed to perform a meta-epidemiologic study to describe the representation, sex and gender reporting, and sex- and gender-based analyses (SGBA) in high-impact RCTs in critical care nephrology.
methodsWe searched the Web of Science Core Collection for critical care nephrology papers from 2000 to 2024. We included trials published in high-impact journals in general medicine, pediatrics, critical care, and nephrology. The main outcome was the proportion of female/woman participants enrolled and the association with trial characteristics, findings, and women authorship. We estimated the participation-to-prevalence ratio (PPR) to evaluate the representativeness of females within identified RCTs and selected case-mix and disease populations. Sex and gender reporting and SGBA were investigated.
resultsA total of 117 RCTs, including 106,057 participants, were included. Sex (54.7%), gender (26.5%), both (2.6%), or none (16.2%) terminology were used for reporting. Male/female (82.1%), men/women (11.1%), both (4.3%), boys/girls (0.9%) and none (1.7%) were used as descriptors. Of the 115 RCTs with available sex/gender data, the median proportion of female/women participants was 35.4% (interquartile range (IQR) 31.2%-40.8%). Pediatric age group and process of care as an intervention were independently associated with the proportion of female/women participants. The median PPR was 0.89 (IQR 0.8-1.06), except in major surgery, for which PPR was 0.67 (IQR 0.29-0.73). Twelve (10.9%) and 49 (41.9%) studies used sex and/or gender as inclusion and exclusion criteria, respectively; 5 (4.3%) studies used sex/gender-stratified randomization; and 35 (29.9%) studies performed SGBA. RCTs with pregnancy, lactation, or women of childbearing age as exclusion criteria had a lower enrollment of female/women participants than RCTs that did not (33.6% vs. 36.8%, P = 0.04). Exclusion criteria of pregnancy, lactation, or childbearing age were considered strongly justified, potentially justified, and poorly justified in 36.1%, 14.9%, and 48.9%, respectively. There were no changes in the representation of females/women and SGBA across identified RCTs over the search range.
conclusionsFemales/women are less frequently represented in critical care nephrology RCTs. Significant gaps exist in sex- and gender-specific eligibility criteria, reporting, and analysis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.