OBJECTIVES: Although racial/ethnic disparities in healthcare have long been recognized, recent discourse around structural racism will hopefully lead to improved transparency surrounding these issues. Despite disproportionate impact of COVID-19 on racial/ethnic minorities, the extent and reliability of reporting is unclear. METHODS: We reviewed COVID-19 research in three top medical journals during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic and assessed for race reporting and proportional representation. RESULTS: Of 95 manuscripts identified, 56 reporting on 252,262 patients met eligibility. Thirty-five (62.5%) did not report race distribution and 15 (26.7%) did not report ethnicity. There was no difference based on journal (P = 0.87), study sponsor (P = 0.41), whether the study was retrospective or prospective (P = 0.33) or observational vs interventional (P = 0.11). Studies with ≥250 patients were more likely to report on race (OR 4.01, 95%CI: 1.12-14.37, P = 0.027) and North American (US and Canada) studies were more likely than European (OR 7.88, 95%CI: 1.73-37.68, P = 0.006) to report on race. COVID-19 research mirrored US COVID-19 racial incidence, however both showed higher distribution of COVID-19 infection among Blacks and a smaller proportion of Whites compared to US population. This suggests research broadly represented infection rates and that social determinants of health are impacting racial distribution of infection. CONCLUSIONS: Despite increasing awareness of racial disparities and inequity, COVID-19 research during the first wave of the pandemic lacked appropriate racial/ethnicity reporting, however research mirrored COVID-19 incidence in the US, with increased burden of infection among Black individuals.
OBJECTIVES: Although racial/ethnic disparities in healthcare have long been recognized, recent discourse around structural racism will hopefully lead to improved transparency surrounding these issues. Despite disproportionate impact of COVID-19 on racial/ethnic minorities, the extent and reliability of reporting is unclear. METHODS: We reviewed COVID-19 research in three top medical journals during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic and assessed for race reporting and proportional representation. RESULTS: Of 95 manuscripts identified, 56 reporting on 252,262 patients met eligibility. Thirty-five (62.5%) did not report race distribution and 15 (26.7%) did not report ethnicity. There was no difference based on journal (P = 0.87), study sponsor (P = 0.41), whether the study was retrospective or prospective (P = 0.33) or observational vs interventional (P = 0.11). Studies with ≥250 patients were more likely to report on race (OR 4.01, 95%CI: 1.12-14.37, P = 0.027) and North American (US and Canada) studies were more likely than European (OR 7.88, 95%CI: 1.73-37.68, P = 0.006) to report on race. COVID-19 research mirrored US COVID-19 racial incidence, however both showed higher distribution of COVID-19infection among Blacks and a smaller proportion of Whites compared to US population. This suggests research broadly represented infection rates and that social determinants of health are impacting racial distribution of infection. CONCLUSIONS: Despite increasing awareness of racial disparities and inequity, COVID-19 research during the first wave of the pandemic lacked appropriate racial/ethnicity reporting, however research mirrored COVID-19 incidence in the US, with increased burden of infection among Black individuals.