Sex Difference in the Treatment of Dupuytren's Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Clinical Trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: The aim of this study was to assess the sex differences in enrollment into clinical trials for Dupuytren's disease (DD), treatment efficacy, and complications. Methods: Three databases were searched; Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, and EBSCO CINAHL. Included studies were clinical trials on adult patients with DD. Exclusion criteria were non-English studies and other study designs. Two independent reviewers completed abstract screening, full-text review, and data extraction. The number and percentage of studies that reported ad hoc analyses for sex differences in treatment efficacy, tolerability, and complications were reported. A meta-analysis was performed on the proportion of female participants enrolled in clinical trials for DD. Results: A total of 3172 references were screened, and 59 studies were identified for full-text review. We identified 28 clinical trials for DD of which none reported secondary analyses for sex differences. Only 2 trials discussed sex differences in complications, and one trial reported sex differences in tolerability. The proportion of female participants in the meta-analysis was 19.5% [95% CI: 16.1-23.0%]. Conclusion: Sex differences in the clinical trials for DD are not widely considered in clinical trials despite their critical role. Males and females do not have equal representation in clinical trials for DD. Future studies should account for sex differences in the design and the analysis of clinical trials.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.035 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".