目的:确定LGBTQ+DEI出版物,并将目前跨亚专业手术领域的文献频率纳入背景。
方法:使用PubMed进行PRISMA系统综述,MEDLINE,WebofScience于2024年4月进行。纳入标准要求定义的子专业的领域内DEI内容,而外语文献,糟糕的方法论,并排除重复项。主要终点是跨亚专业的出版物数量。次要终点包括出版日期,研究设计,和样本量。
结果:在确定的702篇文章中,27人被包括在内神经外科在整形手术的同时进行了两项研究,骨科手术,耳鼻喉科,胸部手术分别为11、7、5和2。在各个亚专业中,出版物的频率具有统计学上的显着差异(p=0.031)。事后残留分析显示,神经外科和胸外科的出版物在统计上较少,而整形手术在统计学上更多(神经系统手术的p=0.04,0.002,0.21,0.42,0.04,整形手术,骨科手术,耳鼻喉科,和胸外科,分别)。次要结果发现,大部分出版日期在2022年至2024年之间。研究方法涉及横断面研究,社论,和回顾性审查(分别为14,11和3),中位样本量为248.5.
结论:本系统综述提供了客观数据,可将DEI文献纳入外科亚专科。总的来说,这篇综述强调了神经外科领域缺乏LGBTQ+DEI文献,并主张纠正这一差距,使外科医生和患者受益.了解当前的数字并评估其他手术领域的进展可能会提供解决方案。
OBJECTIVE: To identify LGBTQ+ diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) publications and contextualize the current frequency of the literature across subspecialty surgical fields.
METHODS: A PRISMA systematic review using PubMed, MEDLINE, and Web of Science was conducted in April 2024. The main inclusion criterion was intrafield DEI content for defined subspecialties; exclusion criteria were foreign language, poor methodology, and duplicates. The primary endpoint was the number of publications across subspecialties. Secondary endpoints included publication dates, study design, and sample size.
RESULTS: Of the 702 articles identified, 27 were included in the analysis. Neurologic surgery had 2 studies; plastic surgery, 11 studies; orthopedic surgery, 7 studies; otolaryngology, 5 studies; and thoracic surgery, 2 studies. There was a statistically significant different frequency of publications across subspecialties (P = 0.031). Post hoc residual analysis indicated that neurosurgery and thoracic surgery had statistically fewer publications, while plastic surgery had statistically more publications (P = 0.04, 0.002, 0.21, 0.42, and 0.04 for neurologic surgery, plastic surgery, orthopedic surgery, otolaryngology, and thoracic surgery, respectively). Secondary outcomes found a majority of publications between 2022 and 2024. Study methodologies involved cross-sectional studies, editorials, and retrospective reviews (14, 11, and 3 respectively) and had a median sample size of 248.5.
CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review provides objective data to contextualize DEI literature across surgical subspecialties. Overall, this review highlights the lack of LGBTQ+ DEI literature in neurosurgery and advocates for correcting this gap for the benefit of both surgeons and patients. Understanding the current numbers and evaluating progress in other surgical fields might provide solutions.