Rates of Reporting and Analyzing Race and Ethnicity in Athlete-Specific Sports Medicine Research: A Systematic Review

Background: Race- and ethnicity-based differences in treatment access and outcomes have been reported in the orthopaedic sports medicine literature. However, the rate at which race and ethnicity are reported and incorporated into the statistical analysis of sports medicine studies remains unclear.

Purpose: To determine the rate at which race and ethnicity are reported and analyzed in athlete-specific sports medicine literature.

Study Design: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4.

Methods: Using PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines, articles published by the 3 journals of the American Orthopaedic Society for Sports Medicine between 2017 and 2021 were considered for inclusion. Original sports medicine research studies that focused on athletes were included. Outcome measures included reporting and analysis of patient demographics (age, sex, race, ethnicity). Studies that included demographic variables in a multivariate analysis or that performed a race-/ethnicity-based stratified analyses were considered to have analyzed that variable. Studies that reported and/or analyzed patient demographics were examined. Chi-square tests were performed to determine statistical significance.

Results: A total of 5140 publications were screened, and 842 met the inclusion criteria. Age and sex were well reported (84.1% and 87.0%, respectively), while race (3.8%) and ethnicity (2.0%) were poorly reported. There was no difference in rates of reporting age, sex, race, or ethnicity between the (), the (), or (). The rate of analysis was also calculated as a percentage of the studies that reported that variable. Of the studies that reported age, 38.5% analyzed age. Using this method, 26.2% of studies analyzed sex, 40.6% analyzed race, and 17.6% analyzed ethnicity. Although there was no difference in the overall rate at which studies from the 3 journals analyzed ethnicity, studies analyzed age ( = .044), sex ( = .001), and race ( = .027) more frequently than studies published in and . Of the studies that analyzed race, most of those studies (8/13, 61.5%) found significant race-based differences in reported outcomes.

Conclusion: This systematic review demonstrated that race and ethnicity are poorly reported and analyzed in athlete-specific sports medicine literature, despite the fact that a majority of studies analyzing race found significant differences between racial groups. Improved reporting of race and ethnicity can determine whether race- and ethnicity-based differences exist in patient interventions to ameliorate disparities in patient outcomes.