OBJECTIVE: Methods of reporting of race/ethnicity in biomedical journals are largely unknown. We aimed to systematically examine the reporting practice of race/ethnicity and socioeconomic status (SES) information in biomedical journals. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: All primary research articles that reported more than one racial/ethnic group, published between 1999 and 2003 in Annals of Internal Medicine, JAMA, The Lancet, and The New England Journal of Medicine (n=1,152) were reviewed for their use of race/ethnicity and SES variables. Interobserver reliability was assessed by independent abstraction of 10% of study sample. RESULTS: There were a total of 116 different terms used to describe various racial/ethnic groups. Assignment of race/ethnicity by self-report was stated in only 13% of papers; 52% of papers identifying race/ethnicity of study participants did not report any SES information. Overall, 16% of articles explicitly stated reasons for collecting information on race/ethnicity. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that race/ethnicity information was suboptimally reported in general medical journals. Terminology used was highly variable. Method of establishing racial/ethnic categories, rationale for collecting race/ethnicity data, and SES information were underreported.
OBJECTIVE: Methods of reporting of race/ethnicity in biomedical journals are largely unknown. We aimed to systematically examine the reporting practice of race/ethnicity and socioeconomic status (SES) information in biomedical journals. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: All primary research articles that reported more than one racial/ethnic group, published between 1999 and 2003 in Annals of Internal Medicine, JAMA, The Lancet, and The New England Journal of Medicine (n=1,152) were reviewed for their use of race/ethnicity and SES variables. Interobserver reliability was assessed by independent abstraction of 10% of study sample. RESULTS: There were a total of 116 different terms used to describe various racial/ethnic groups. Assignment of race/ethnicity by self-report was stated in only 13% of papers; 52% of papers identifying race/ethnicity of study participants did not report any SES information. Overall, 16% of articles explicitly stated reasons for collecting information on race/ethnicity. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that race/ethnicity information was suboptimally reported in general medical journals. Terminology used was highly variable. Method of establishing racial/ethnic categories, rationale for collecting race/ethnicity data, and SES information were underreported.
Authors: Christine Dehlendorf; Allison S Bryant; Heather G Huddleston; Vanessa L Jacoby; Victor Y Fujimoto Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2010-03 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Jennifer B Listman; Deborah Hasin; Henry R Kranzler; Robert T Malison; Apiwat Mutirangura; Atapol Sughondhabirom; Efrat Aharonovich; Baruch Spivak; Joel Gelernter Journal: BMC Genet Date: 2010-06-14 Impact factor: 2.797
Authors: Timothy Caulfield; Stephanie M Fullerton; Sarah E Ali-Khan; Laura Arbour; Esteban G Burchard; Richard S Cooper; Billie-Jo Hardy; Simrat Harry; Robyn Hyde-Lay; Jonathan Kahn; Rick Kittles; Barbara A Koenig; Sandra Sj Lee; Michael Malinowski; Vardit Ravitsky; Pamela Sankar; Stephen W Scherer; Béatrice Séguin; Darren Shickle; Guilherme Suarez-Kurtz; Abdallah S Daar Journal: Genome Med Date: 2009-01-21 Impact factor: 11.117