Sex distribution and sex data handling in published otolaryngology research

The Use of Race and Socioeconomic Status Variables in Published Otolaryngologic Research

OBJECTIVE

To characterize the use of race and socioeconomic status (SES) variables in clinical otolarynogologic research.

METHODS

Databases were queried for all articles published in 2016 issues of 5 major otolaryngologic journals. One thousand, one hundred and forty of 1593 articles abstracted met inclusion criteria for analysis.

RESULTS

In total, 244 (21.4%) studies specified race as a variable. The subspecialty of Head and Neck cancer specified race at statistically higher rates compared to other subspecialties (P = .002). Two hundred nine (34.0%) domestic studies specified race compared to 35 (6.7%) international studies. Of the 244 studies that specified race, 79 (32.4%) defined race using racial and ethnic categories interchangeably. Two hundred twenty-four (91.8%) studies reported data by race, 145 (59.4%) analyzed the data, and 112 (45.9%) discussed race-based results.In total, 94 (8.2%) studies specified SES. All subspecialties specified SES at statistically similar rates. Seventy (11.4%) domestic studies specified SES compared to 24 (4.6%) international studies. Of the 94 studies that specified SES, 42 (44.7%) defined SES using insurance status, 35 (37.2%) used education, and 32 (34.0%) used income. Seventy-eight (83.0%) studies reported data by SES, 71 (75.5%) analyzed the data, and 68 (72.3%) discussed SES-based results.

CONCLUSION

In clinical otolaryngologic research, the study of race and SES is limited. To improve quality of research and patient care for all patients, investigators should clearly justify their use of race and SES variables, carefully select their measures of race and SES (if the use of these variables is justified), and study race/SES-based data beyond just a superficial level.

Sex Bias in Laryngology Research and Publishing

OBJECTIVE

To investigate sex bias in laryngology research and publishing.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Articles published in 2019 in seven mainstream otolaryngology journals were reviewed. Original manuscripts were included. Study type (medical, speech-language pathology, basic science, or pedagogy), subject sex, ≥50% sex-matching (SM_≥50), sex-based analysis, and bibliometric data including author sex were recorded.

RESULTS

Of 1619 publications reviewed, 259 patient-centered original laryngology studies were included, totaling 7,130,991 subjects (3,411,741 [47.8%] male; 3,718,694 [52.1%] female; 556 [0.0%] unreported). 29 studies included subjects of a single sex and 14 did not report sex. 114 (44%) studies met SM_≥50, and 95 (37%) used sex-based analysis; no differences were found among study types or location. Sex-based analysis was used less in single-institution (33%) than database studies (62%, P = 0.01). No difference in SM_≥50 was found among single or multi-institution, or database. There were 1340 total authors (578 [43%] female). First, corresponding, and senior authors were 47%, 39%, and 35% female, respectively. Studies that had female first and/or senior authors did not differ in rates of SM_≥50 or sex-based analysis or mean enrollment of females compared to studies with male first and senior authors. The proportion of female physician first and senior authors did not differ from the proportion of female Association of American Medical Colleges otolaryngology faculty, but was non-significantly smaller than the proportion of female laryngology fellows at four academic institutions.

CONCLUSION

Laryngology research exhibits sex bias in subject enrollment and sex-based analysis. Female authorship was representative of national demographics and author sex did not influence the rate of sex bias.