Female Enrollment in Rehabilitation Trials: A Systematic Review of Reporting Sex and Female Participation in Randomized Controlled Trials of Poststroke Upper Extremity Rehabilitation Over 50 Years
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To systematically assess the reporting of sex and the percentage of female participants in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) examining interventions for the post-stroke rehabilitation of upper extremity (UE) motor disorders. DATA SOURCES: CINAHL, Embase, PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science were searched from 1960 to April 1, 2021. Additional articles were identified using the Evidence-Based Review of Stroke Rehabilitation. STUDY SELECTION: Studies were eligible for inclusion if they (1) were RCTs or crossovers published in English, (2) ≥50% of participants were diagnosed and affected by stroke, (3) included adults ≥18 years old, and (4) applied an intervention to the hemiparetic UE as the primary objective of the study. DATA EXTRACTION: Two investigators independently screened the title and abstracts, and duplicates were removed. A full-text review was done for studies that met all inclusion criteria. Data were extracted using a custom data extraction template in Covidence and were transferred to online Excel (V16) for data management. Study characteristics and extracted variables were summarized using standard descriptive statistics. Data analyses were performed using SPSS (V29.0). DATA SYNTHESIS: A total of 1276 RCTs met inclusion criteria, and of these, 5.2% did not report results on sex, accounting for 5.6% of participants. Women have been underrepresented in stroke RCTs, accounting for 38.8% of participants. Female participation was greater in the acute poststroke phase than in the chronic and subacute phases. Over almost 5 decades, there has been a small decrease in the proportion of female participants in these trials. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence-based medicine for the treatment and prevention of stroke is guided by results from RCTs. Generalizability depends on sufficient representation in clinical trials. Stakeholders, such as funders and journal editors, play a key role in encouraging researchers to enroll enough of both sexes and to report the presence or absence of sex differences in RCTs.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.163 | 0.414 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.015 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.017 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".