Race and Ethnicity in Otolaryngology Academic Publications

Objective Within otolaryngology, race is commonly included as a study covariate; however, its value in clinical practice is unclear. This study sought to explore how race and ethnicity have been used and applied over time in otolaryngology publications. Data Sources PubMed database. Review Methods A systematic review was done to identify original otolaryngology studies between January 1, 1946, and June 25, 2020, with the following search terms: "otolaryngology" AND "race" OR "ethnicity." Results Of the 1984 yielded studies, 932 were included in the final analysis. Only 2 studies (0.2%) defined race, and 172 (18.5%) gave participants the opportunity to self-identify race. Less than half (n = 322, 43.8%) of studies controlled for confounders. One hundred studies (10.7%) linked race to genetic factors. An overall 564 (60.5%) made conclusions about race, and 232 (24.9%) mentioned that race is relevant for clinical decision making. The majority of studies had first and senior authors from high-income countries (93.9% and 93.8%, respectively). Over time, there was a significant increase in publications that controlled for confounders, the number of race categories used, and studies that highlighted disparities. Conclusion Race and ethnicity are often poorly defined in otolaryngology publications. Furthermore, publications do not always control for confounding variables or allow participants to self-identify race. On the basis of our findings, we suggest 7 foundational principles that can be used to promote equitable research in otolaryngology publications. Future efforts should focus on incorporating research guidelines for race and ethnicity into journal publication standards.