American journal of industrial medicine · 2018
A comprehensive approach of the gender bias in occupational cancer epidemiology: A systematic review of lung cancer studies (2003-2014).
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАСистематический обзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Betansedi Charles-Olivier, Vaca Vasquez Patricia, Counil Emilie
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: In occupational epidemiology, a male-centered perspective often predominates. We aimed to describe current research practices in terms of gender consideration at different stages of epidemiological studies.
METHODS: A systematic review of occupational lung cancer publications indexed in PubMed was conducted over the period 2003-2014. Articles were described according to the sex composition of their study sample.
RESULTS: In 243 studies, 7 (3%) were women-only, 101 (41%) were mixed, with a disproportionate men-to-women ratio (P50 = 3.5; P75 = 12.4). A shift was observed from mixed and unspecified source populations to men-only final samples. Our results also suggest implicit generalization of results from men-only studies, a lack of tests of interaction and often unjustified sex-adjustment for mixed studies.
CONCLUSIONS: The lower proportion of women in studies cannot be fully explained by their under-representation in the target populations, since there were large numbers of women among both potentially exposed workers and patients diagnosed with lung cancer.
METHODS: A systematic review of occupational lung cancer publications indexed in PubMed was conducted over the period 2003-2014. Articles were described according to the sex composition of their study sample.
RESULTS: In 243 studies, 7 (3%) were women-only, 101 (41%) were mixed, with a disproportionate men-to-women ratio (P50 = 3.5; P75 = 12.4). A shift was observed from mixed and unspecified source populations to men-only final samples. Our results also suggest implicit generalization of results from men-only studies, a lack of tests of interaction and often unjustified sex-adjustment for mixed studies.
CONCLUSIONS: The lower proportion of women in studies cannot be fully explained by their under-representation in the target populations, since there were large numbers of women among both potentially exposed workers and patients diagnosed with lung cancer.