Conceptualization, operationalization, and utilization of race and ethnicity in major medical journals 1995-2018: a systematic review
=====================================================================================================================================

* Rae Anne M. Martinez
* Rachel E. Wilbur
* Nafeesa Andrabi
* Andrea N. Goodwin
* Natalie R. Smith
* Paul N. Zivich

## ABSTRACT

**Background** Systemic racial and ethnic inequities continue to be perpetuated through scientific methodology and communication norms despite efforts by medical institutions.

**Purpose** To characterize methodological practices regarding race and ethnicity in U.S. research published in leading medical journals.

**Data source** Articles published in Annals of Internal Medicine, BMJ, JAMA, The Lancet, and NEJM from 1995-2018 were sampled via PubMed.

**Study Selection** All original, human subjects research conducted in the U.S.

**Data Extraction** Information on definition, measurement, coding, use in analyses, and justifications was collected.

**Data Synthesis** The proportion of U.S. medical research studies including race and/or ethnicity data increased between 1995 and 2018. No studies defined race or ethnicity. and most did not state how race and/or ethnicity was measured. Common coding schemes included: “Black, other, White,” “Hispanic, Non-Hispanic,” and “Black, Hispanic, other, White.” Race and/or ethnicity was most often used as a control variable, descriptive covariate, or matching criteria. Under 30% of studies included justification for their methodological choices regarding race and/or ethnicity.

**Conclusions** Despite regular efforts by medical journals to implement new policies around race and ethnicity in medical research, pertinent methodological information was systematically absent from the majority of reviewed literature. This stymies critical disciplinary reflection and progress towards equitable practice.

## INTRODUCTION

Following global protests for racial equity, an increasing number of health researchers are studying racism as a fundamental cause of morbidity and mortality. Such investment is long overdue. However, racism-focused work must be coupled with sound methodological practices regarding the social constructs of race and ethnicity. Effectively using these constructs is integral to documenting and understanding how systems of racism and ethnocentrism affect health. Unfortunately, practices surrounding race and ethnicity in medical research are often deficient regarding definitions, measurement, coding, analysis, and interpretation of findings. Perpetuating problematic methodological practices maintains an ethnocentric status quo and may contribute to challenges in understanding how racism affects health, ultimately hindering effective and equitable healthcare and policy-making.

Debates over appropriate methodological approaches to race and ethnicity in health are longstanding. In the 1990s, researchers challenged many methodological decisions, including the necessity of racial and/or ethnic data, construct definitions, measurement choices, appropriateness of coding schemes, and role of variables in analyses (1-8). At the time, Thomas LaVeist (1996) argued that racial and ethnic data retained high utility for health research. He challenged health researchers to “do a better job” of conceptualizing race, understanding nuances of racial and ethnic measurements, and interpreting findings with care in order to help reduce health disparities in the U.S. (9). Recent work in surgery and oncology has identified infrequent reporting of race and ethnicity data (10-12), however, no comprehensive systematic review of the state of these methodological practices in medicine over time currently exists.

The present study seeks to fill this gap by systematically reviewing trends in methodological practices regarding the conceptualization, operationalization, and utilization of race and ethnicity in U.S. medical literature. By examining publications in influential medical journals over the past quarter-century, we document the state of medicine’s methodological norms and identify patterns of disciplinary practices that may reify misconceptions about race and ethnicity, with implications for scientific quality, reproducibility, and equity. In total, we investigated five core questions using a sample of U.S. medical publications: 1) What proportion of studies incorporate data on race and ethnicity? 2) What proportion provides conceptualization of race and ethnicity? 3) How is race and ethnicity data operationalized? 4) How is race and ethnicity data utilized in analyses? And 5) Do the authors justify their methodological decisions regarding race and ethnicity in publication?

## METHODS

This study is a methodological systematic review under Munn et al.’s taxonomy (13), as the foundational methodological treatment (i.e., definitions, measurement, coding, analytical use, and scientific justifications) of two key variables - race and ethnicity - is the focus of this investigation. We define race as a social and political construct whereby social meanings (e.g., beliefs about ability, health, worth, etc.) are assigned to arbitrary phenotypes and which capture differential access to power, opportunities, and resources in a race-conscious society (14, 15). Similarly, we define ethnicity as a social construct, stemming from a sense of belonging over shared cultural elements (e.g., language, religion, traditions, values) and/or of place (e.g., national origin) (14, 16). Both race and ethnicity are contextually, temporally, and geographically specific; neither race or ethnicity are determined by biology (17-19). For the purpose of this review, “Hispanic” and “Latino/a/x/e” are defined as a pan-ethnic identities, not as racial identities. Furthermore, “African American” is defined as an ethnic identity and is not synonymous with “Black.” See Appendix 1 for additional background and rationale. Capitalization practices were not collected from sampled articles; however, we follow the AMA capitalization style guidelines and capitalize all racial and/or ethnic terms in this article (20).

### Data sources and searches

The target articles under study include all U.S.-based, original, human subjects medical research published in *Annals of Internal Medicine, BMJ, Journal of the American Medical Association* (JAMA), *The Lancet*, and the *New England Journal of Medicine* (NEJM) between Jan 1, 1995 and Dec 31, 2018 (Figure 1). Journals were selected based on impact factor and reputation, consistent with other methodological systematic reviews (21-23).

![Figure 1.](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2023/04/07/2022.03.07.22271661/F1.medium.gif)

[Figure 1.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/04/07/2022.03.07.22271661/F1)

Figure 1. Study selection.
Total population of articles includes all articles published in the five identified journals between Jan 1 1995 and Dec 31 2018. In total, 35194 articles were returned; this includes articles that do not meet study eligibility criteria (i.e., US-based, original human subjects research).

Studies were identified by searching PubMed for empirical work published between Jan 1, 1995 and Dec 31, 2018. To reduce ineligible articles the following search terms were used: (English[Language]) NOT (Letter[Publication Type]) NOT (Comment[Publication Type]) NOT (Editorial[Publication Type]) NOT (Review[Publication Type]) NOT (News[Publication Type]) NOT (Case Reports[Publication Type]) AND ((“United States”[MeSH]) OR (“United States”[tw]) OR America[tw] OR “U.S.”[tw] OR “US”[tw]). Given the number of articles returned by the original search (35,194; Figure 1) and the richness of the data we aimed to collect, we took a stratified random sample of 210 articles from five, five-year periods (1995-1999; 2000-2004; 2005-2009; 2010-2014; 2015-2019; 1050 articles total). Data collection occurred between July 2019 and November 2021.

### Study selection

All human-subjects research conducted exclusively in the U.S. was included. Non-U.S.-based research or multi-national research was excluded because of the unique social and geopolitical structures through which race and ethnicity function. We encourage researchers in other countries to conduct similar reviews using language and racial and/or ethnic categories that are important and specific to their context. Letters to the editor, commentaries, meta-analyses, and simulation studies were excluded. No restrictions were made on study outcome, exposure, or study design.

### Data extraction and quality assessment

Full details on the protocol have been reported elsewhere (23). In brief, all included articles were independently reviewed in-full by two reviewers; data were abstracted into a standardized REDCap form (24, 25). Abstraction was conducted using an existing protocol and all reviewers were primed using practice articles. Any abstraction discrepancies were discussed between the pair of reviewers, and if consensus could not be reached, were reviewed collectively by the author team. A third data quality check was conducted by the primary author. See Appendix 2 for details.

### Software

Articles were sampled with Python 3.5.2 (26) using Biopython (27) and NumPy (28) libraries. Analyses were performed in R, version 4.0.2 (29) with packages tableone (30), tidytext (31), and tidyverse (32).

### Funding

Financial support was provided in part by training grants from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development [T32-HD091058], National Cancer Institute [T32-CA057711], and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease [T32-AI007001] with general support from the Carolina Population Center [P2C-HD050924, P30-AG066615]. Additional pilot funding was provided by the Department of Sociology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Funding sources had no role in data collection, analysis, interpretation, or any other aspect pertinent to the study.

## RESULTS

Of 1050 screened articles, 242 were included (Figure 1). The majority of excluded articles were either international studies or commentaries (Figure 1).

Across time periods, the majority of studies were either cohort studies (range 56-73%) or randomized control trials (range 18-41%; Table 1). Most studies examined a physical or mental health outcome (range 70-80%). “Other” outcomes were the second most prevalent (16-23%) and included studies on topics such as medical training, medical errors and the prevention of adverse events, or physician decision making.

View this table:
[Table 1.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/04/07/2022.03.07.22271661/T1)

Table 1. Characteristics of included articles (*N=242*)

### Question 1: Inclusion of racial and ethnic data

The proportion of reviewed studies that included data on participants’ race increased over time (range 44-74%, Table 1). Studies that did not include participants’ racial data do not substantially differ from the overall sample with respect to study design, study outcome, or sample size (Appendix Table 2). Over the same period, the proportion of reviewed studies that included participants’ ethnicity data has similarly increased (range 20-58%, Table 1).

View this table:
[Table 2.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/04/07/2022.03.07.22271661/T2)

Table 2. Measures of race and ethnicity over time, 1995-2018

Racial and ethnic data were almost always included together in the same study. Across all 149 studies which included participants’ race and/or ethnicity data, only a single study included data on participants’ ethnicity without also including data on participants’ race. When ethnicity data was included in the study, it was frequently combined with race into a single ethnoracial construct (range 81-100%, Table 1). Only 11 studies across all strata included both race and ethnicity data and kept them as separate entities.

### Question 2: Conceptualization of race and ethnicity

Across all 149 studies which included data on participants’ race and/or ethnicity, none provided a definition of either construct.

### Question 3: Operationalization

In 59-90% of articles across strata, the measurement of race was “not stated or unclear” (Table 2). In articles that indicated using “self-reported” race, it was frequently ambiguous if the measure was open-ended (i.e., free response) or close-ended (i.e., selection from preset options). Ambiguity between “open” and “closed” measures was more common in later strata (2005-09, 2010-14, 2015-18, Table 2). Use of other measures (e.g., observed, reflected, or phenotype) was infrequent or absent (Table 2).

Results for ethnicity are similar; across all strata, articles commonly lacked any information on measurement of ethnicity (range 52-89%, Table 2). Ambiguity between open and closed measures was more common in later strata (2005-09, 2010-14, 2015-18, Table 2), and other measures (e.g., country of origin) were rare.

Coding schemes were collapsed across sampling strata and examined by use of a strictly racial, ethnic, or a collapsed ethnoracial construct. Racial and ethnoracial coding schemes were more heterogeneous, while ethnic coding schemes were more similar (Table 3). Although “non-White, White” and “nonWhite, White” are functionally the same, we made no attempt to collapse coding schemes based on similarity due to concern about the subjectivity of those decisions. The most common racial coding schemes reflected predominantly binary racial framing centering “Whiteness,” while ethnic coding schemes primarily centered on “Hispanic” or “Latino” binary coding. In the most common ethnoracial coding schemes “Hispanic” - an ethnic group - is compared to the racial categories of “White” and “Black.” Ethnic, racial, and ethnoracial codings all included “ns (not stated),” where no information was provided in the article about how participants’ racial and/or ethnicity data was re-coded for the study. Appendix Tables 3 and 4 contain the complete list of racial and ethnoracial coding schemes, respectively.

View this table:
[Table 3.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/04/07/2022.03.07.22271661/T3)

Table 3. Most frequent coding schemes

### Question 4: Use in analyses

Race and ethnicity were predominantly classified as “not of interest” in analyses (i.e., used as a descriptive covariate, confounder, or matching criteria; range 64-84%; Appendix Table 5). Only four studies across stratum used race and/or ethnicity as an exclusion criterion, two of which restricted analysis to solely White participants. In 10-25% of studies across stratum, race and/or ethnicity were “of interest” (e.g., specific group comparisons, effect measure modification, or predictive variable).

### Question 5: Justification

Approximately 30% of the 149 studies across strata which included participants’ racial and/or ethnic data provided a justification for at least one of their decisions surrounding race and/or ethnicity (e.g., the relevance of race and/or ethnicity to the study question, choice of measure, generation of coding scheme, and why an analytical approach or use of the variable was appropriate; data not shown). No studies provided justifications for the selection of a particular measure (e.g., selection of close-ended, self-report question over an open-ended, self-report question). Three studies referenced National Institutes of Health or other institutional guidelines with respect to decisions making on measurement and coding. As in Castro *et al*. (2014), authors explained “race was assessed by participant self-report, using National Institutes of Health race/ethnicity reporting standards and categories” (p.2085-2086) (33).

## DISCUSSION

We systematically review methodological practices regarding the conceptualization, operationalization, and use of race and ethnicity in U.S. medical research published in prominent journals between 1995-2018. We found that information specific to race and ethnicity was routinely, if not systematically, absent from articles. While inclusion of racial and ethnic data has increased since 1995, no studies defined either construct and most did not describe how race and/or ethnicity was measured. Occasionally, the coding schemes of racial and ethnic variables were even omitted. Most studies across time periods did not provide scientific justification for their choices with respect to race and/or ethnicity.

Scientific rigor relies on replication and validation, which is rendered impossible if core methodological decisions are not clearly communicated. Core methodology includes information on definitions, measurement, and coding of variables, as well as scientific rationale. Absence of such information may impact interpretation of findings or their translation into interventions, especially when it is unclear who is under study and why. Lack of basic information on methodology threatens our ability to conduct responsible and rigorous science.

### Scientific and cultural racism

Journal word limits provide a potential structural explanation for lack of clarity regarding race and ethnicity. Descriptions of methodological choices regarding race and ethnicity may compete with information on foundational literature, study design, exposure, outcome, results, or interpretations for inclusion.

The absence of information could also reflect a misguided belief in the presumed universality of race: that what race is and is not, the number of racial groups, boundaries between racial groups, and the “scientific relevance” of race to medical research are invariably understood. If race and ethnicity are universally understood across temporal, socio-cultural, and geopolitical contexts, then “race” does not need explanation or justification. Race, however, is not universal. Rather, what “race” is, the number of and boundaries between “racial groups,” and mechanisms by which the multilevel system of racism operates are deeply contextual. A large body of literature has theorized on how the social construction of racial and ethnic categories is historically situated and changes over time and place (14, 34-38).

The U.S., for example, is a nation explicitly designed to prioritize the life chances of a single group of people. As a settler-colonial state which achieved global financial power through slave labor and imperialism, the structures which continue to support the political, financial, judiciary, and educational systems maintain a hierarchical status quo based on established racial groups (39). Racism may be globally pervasive, but the structure of the system and the experience of living within it is different in the U.S. than it is in Mexico, Brazil, South Africa, India, or any other country.

Combatting scientific racism in medicine, in part, requires naming the methodological assumptions behind the treatment of race and/or ethnicity in medical research. For over 150 years, medicine as a discipline actively reified the biological essentialist definition of race - that perceived behavioral and health differences between “racial groups” were true, immutable, and inherent to an individual’s genetic makeup (40). By routinely justifying biological essentialism with pseudoscientific evidence, race became “common sense” and perceived as part of the natural world (40). This idea has so deeply infiltrated scientific institutions and thought, that it remains present today despite the scientific process demonstrating the falsity of these claims. Within these structures, medical research in the U.S. has historically adhered to practices which harm subordinated groups as research subjects while the knowledge produced by these research practices most benefits those of the dominant group (41, 42). This practice contributed to the current state, in which racial and ethnic minorities are often systematically excluded in medicine, as both research participants and researchers (43-47). Thus, medical knowledge is predicated on only some bodies, cultures, and experiences (48, 49). The lack of diverse perspectives contributes to the perpetuation of unconscious bias and racist practices in medicine.

### Institutions and structure

Over the years, journals and other institutions have developed communication guidelines around race and ethnicity. The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) developed two such recommendations in 2004, namely that 1) the inclusion of racial and ethnic data is explicitly motivated and 2) the measurement of race and ethnicity is clearly explained (50, 51).

All of the journals sampled in our study aim to follow the standards set forth by ICMJE (52). However, for U.S.-based human subjects research published in these journals, adherence appears limited. After 2004, most studies still did not include information on how race and/or ethnicity was measured. Even considering the possibility of a lag between the release of new standards and the publishing of articles following those standards, adherence is low. Furthermore, few articles included justifications for decisions surrounding race and ethnicity.

Editors and specific medical journals have further echoed and elaborated upon the ICMJE recommendations. Following the 2004 update, former JAMA Deputy Editor Dr. Margaret Winker introduced expanded ICMJE guidance specifically for network journals, calling for authors to provide details on (1) who assessed an individual’s race, (2) whether self-designation options were “open” or “closed,” (3) what the closed self-designation categories were, (4) if and how closed self-designation categories were combined, and (5) the rationale or relevance of race and ethnicity to a particular study (53). In supplemental analyses, there is minimal evidence of adherence to these additional higher standards among sampled JAMA articles (Appendix 3). Recently, the AMA has released more explicit policies (54, 55).

### Actions for improvement

Previous work in medicine and adjacent disciplines has provided suggestions for improvement (23, 56-59). We build on this work by calling for clear communication of these improved practices, including definitions, measurement, coding, use, and justifications. This is not a radical position. We simply argue that race and ethnicity should be given the same interrogation and justification as other variables, and that this be clearly communicated in publication.

We urge health researchers to follow existing guidelines and implore medical journals and editors to implement mechanisms for accountability to these standards. For example, authors could be prompted to certify at submission that they have adhered to ICMJE or AMA guidelines. At the peer-review level, additional training could be implemented to ensure that reviewers are confident in recognizing whether a manuscript meets criteria. We further encourage out of the box thinking to overcome structures; for example, pertinent details on race and ethnicity could be without word count, similar to human subjects statements or acknowledgements. Conducting annual reviews of policy adherence across medical journals could ensure that baseline benchmarks are being met.

Responsibility for meeting disciplinary standards of research falls on both medical journals and authors, as both are ultimately in service of patients and study participants. As “key players in the production of knowledge” (p.1288) and gatekeepers of research dissemination, editors and medical journals are in a unique position to ensure adherence to stringent scientific communication norms (60). In particular, prominent medical journals, by setting and requiring adherence to guidelines on clear communication, may influence disciplinary-wide standards. For authors, meeting these standards may require critical thought and conscious decoupling from earlier norms of conducting and reporting race and ethnicity in medical research.

### Limitations

The abstraction from sampled articles is imperfect. The data retain a degree of subjectivity, despite protocols to standardize data entry and data quality checks. This is perhaps most true for the data on scientific justifications. Data abstractors were instructed to be as broad as possible when collecting information on justifications, thus data may be an overestimate of articles which included at least one justification.

Second, it is possible that recent attention to addressing racism and ethnocentrism broadly has resulted in a renewed effort to “do a better job.” Subsequently, methodological practices and the communication thereof may have substantially shifted between Jan 1, 2019 and today. Finally, we did not review supplementary materials. If information on definitions, measurement, coding, or scientific justifications was included in supplements, they were missed.

## Conclusion

Interventions aimed at addressing racism as a fundamental cause of disease in the U.S. must be based on unassailable research achieved through strict methodological rigor. Quality science enables knowledge democracy and health equity by providing a strong evidence base for changes in medical practice and policy. Dismantling systematic oppression in medicine requires clear, critical, and honest communication around the use of race and ethnicity data in medicine. Collectively, the health research community needs to hold each other accountable to continue improving how race and ethnicity are conceptualized, operationalized, and utilized in medical research. This should be one element in a holistic, multipronged approach to addressing racism and health inequity which also centers additional systems reforms.

## Supporting information

Supplemental Files (ALL) [[supplements/271661_file02.pdf]](pending:yes)

## Data Availability

REDCap data entry form and full list of articles will be made available upon request with publication. Please contact the corresponding author for data inquiries.

## CONTRIBUTORS

RAMM conceived of the study and directed its implementation, including quality assurance and control. All authors contributed to study design and data acquisition. Authors RAMM, NRS, and PNZ conducted analyses. RAMM and REW wrote the primary draft; all other authors (NA, ANG, NRS, PNZ) contributed to further drafts and edits. All authors had full access to and verified the data.

## DECLARATION OF INTERESTS

We declare no competing interests.

## DATA SHARING

REDCap data entry form and full list of articles will be made available upon request with publication. Please contact the corresponding author for data inquiries.

## FUNDING

Funding was provided through training grants from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development [T32 HD091058] and the Department of Sociology, UNC Chapel Hill. Carolina Population Center provided general support [P2C HD050924, P30 AG066615]. NRS received additional support from the National Cancer Institute [T32 CA057711]; PNZ received additional support from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases [T32-AI007001].

## ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We are thankful to Dr. Allison E. Aiello and Dr. Robert A. Hummer for their guidance and support. We are indebted to Denise Mitchell for their assistance in data collection. NRS contributed to this work while at the University of North Carolina and is now a postdoctoral fellow in the Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health Department of Social and Behavioral Sciences.

## Footnotes

*   The abstract, methods section, and discussion were updated for clarity. Original "Figure 2" was removed and its information was added to "Table 1" in the revised manuscript. Original "Panel: Research in context" was removed.

*   Received March 7, 2022.
*   Revision received April 7, 2023.
*   Accepted April 7, 2023.


*   © 2023, Posted by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory

The copyright holder for this pre-print is the author. All rights reserved. The material may not be redistributed, re-used or adapted without the author's permission.

## REFERENCES

1.  1.Bhopal R, Phillimore P, Kohli S. Inappropriate use of the term ‘Asian’: an obstacle to ethnicity and health research. Journal of Public Health Medicine. 1991;13(4):224–46.
    
    

2.  2.Osborne NG, Feit MD. The Use of Race in Medical Research. JAMA. 1992;267(2):275–9.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1001/jama.1992.03480020085037&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=1727527&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F04%2F07%2F2022.03.07.22271661.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=A1992GY04600034&link_type=ISI) 

3.  3.Feinleib M. Response: The Use of Race in Medical Research. JAMA. 1992;267(23):3150.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=1593728&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F04%2F07%2F2022.03.07.22271661.atom) 

4.  4.Hankoff LD. Response: The Use of Race in Medical Research. JAMA. 1992;267(23):3150.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=1593728&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F04%2F07%2F2022.03.07.22271661.atom) 

5.  5.Osborne NG, Feit MD. In reply: the Use of Race in Medical Research. JAMA. 1992;267(23):3151.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1001/jama.1992.03480230042014&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=1510775&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F04%2F07%2F2022.03.07.22271661.atom) 

6.  6.Vladeck BC. From the Health Care Financing Administration. JAMA. 1994;272(10):761.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1001/jama.1994.03520100025010&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=8078126&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F04%2F07%2F2022.03.07.22271661.atom) 

7.  7.Bhopal R. Is research into ethnicity and health racist, unsound, or important science? BMJ. 1997;314(1751-56):1751.
    
    [FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiRlVMTCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MzoiYm1qIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjEzOiIzMTQvNzA5Ni8xNzUxIjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6NTA6Ii9tZWRyeGl2L2Vhcmx5LzIwMjMvMDQvMDcvMjAyMi4wMy4wNy4yMjI3MTY2MS5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=) 

8.  8.Rivara FP, Finberg L. Use of the Terms Race and Ethnicity. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2001;155:119.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1001/archpedi.155.2.119&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=11177083&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F04%2F07%2F2022.03.07.22271661.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000166822000003&link_type=ISI) 

9.  9.LaVeist TA. Why we should continue to study race… But do a better job: an essay on race, racism, and health. Ethn Dis. 1996;6:21–9.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=8882833&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F04%2F07%2F2022.03.07.22271661.atom) 

10. 10.Ma IW, Khan NA, Kang A, Zalunardo N, Palepu A. Systematic review identified suboptimal reporting and use of race/ethnicity in general medical journals. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;60(6):572–8. Epub 2007/05/12. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.11.009. PubMed PMID: 17493512.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.11.009&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=17493512&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F04%2F07%2F2022.03.07.22271661.atom) 

11. 11.Bokor-Billmann T, Langan EA, Billmann F. The reporting of race and/or ethnicity in the medical literature: a retrospective bibliometric analysis confirmed room for improvement. J Clin Epidemiol. 2020;119:1–6. Epub 2019/11/13. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.11.005. PubMed PMID: 31715264.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.11.005&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=31715264&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F04%2F07%2F2022.03.07.22271661.atom) 

12. 12.Maduka RC, Broderick M, White EM, Ballouz D, Sandhu H, Kwakye G,  xset al. The Reporting of Race and Ethnicity in Surgery Literature. JAMA Surg. 2021;156(11):1036–41. doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2021.3752. PubMed PMID: 34406343; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC8374728.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1001/jamasurg.2021.3752&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=34406343&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F04%2F07%2F2022.03.07.22271661.atom) 

13. 13.Munn Z, Stern C, Aromataris E, Lockwood C, Jordan Z. What kind of systematic review should I conduct? A proposed typology and guidance for systematic reviewers in the medical and health sciences. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018;18(1):5. Epub 20180110. doi: 10.1186/s12874-017-0468-4. PubMed PMID: 29316881; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5761190.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1186/s12874-017-0468-4&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F04%2F07%2F2022.03.07.22271661.atom) 

14. 14.Omi M, Winant H. Racial Formation in the United States. 3rd. Ed. ed2015.
    
    

15. 15.Roth WD. The multiple dimensions of race. Ethnic and Racial Studies. 2016;39(8):1398–406. doi: 10.1080/01419870.2016.1153693.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1080/01419870.2016.1153693&link_type=DOI) 

16. 16.Ford CL, Harawa NT. A new conceptualization of ethnicity for social epidemiologic and health equity research. Soc Sci Med. 2010;71(2):251–8. Epub 2010/05/22. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2010.04.008. PubMed PMID: 20488602; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC2908006.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.socscimed.2010.04.008&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=20488602&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F04%2F07%2F2022.03.07.22271661.atom) 

17. 17.Tishkoff SA, Kidd KK. Implications of biogeography of human populations for ‘race’ and medicine. Nat Genet. 2004;36(11 Suppl):S21–7. Epub 2004/10/28. doi: 10.1038/ng1438. PubMed PMID: 15507999.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1038/ng1438&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=15507999&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F04%2F07%2F2022.03.07.22271661.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000224854000007&link_type=ISI) 

18. 18.TallBear K. Native American DNA: tribal belonging and the false promise of genetic science. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press; 2013.
    
    

19. 19.Yudell M, Roberts D, DeSalle R, Tishkoff SA. Taking race out of human genetics. Science. 2016;351(6273):564–5.
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6Mzoic2NpIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjEyOiIzNTEvNjI3My81NjQiO3M6NDoiYXRvbSI7czo1MDoiL21lZHJ4aXYvZWFybHkvMjAyMy8wNC8wNy8yMDIyLjAzLjA3LjIyMjcxNjYxLmF0b20iO31zOjg6ImZyYWdtZW50IjtzOjA6IiI7fQ==) 

20. 20.Iverson C, American Medical Assoication. AMA manual of style: A guide for authors and editors. 11th ed2020.
    
    

21. 21.Savitz DA, Tolo KA, Poole C. Statistical Significance Testing in the American Journal of Epidemiology, 1970-1990. Am J Epidemiol. 1994;139(10):1047–52.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=8178784&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F04%2F07%2F2022.03.07.22271661.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=A1994NM17800009&link_type=ISI) 

22. 22.Stang A, Deckert M, Poole C, Rothman KJ. Statistical inference in abstracts of major medical and epidemiology journals 1975-2014: a systematic review. Eur J Epidemiol. 2017;32(1):21–9. Epub 2016/11/20. doi: 10.1007/s10654-016-0211-1. PubMed PMID: 27858205.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1007/s10654-016-0211-1&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=27858205&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F04%2F07%2F2022.03.07.22271661.atom) 

23. 23.Martinez RAM, Andrabi N, Goodwin AN, Wilbur RE, Smith NR, Zivich PN. Conceptualization, operationalization, and utilization of race and ethnicity in major epidemiology journals 1995-2018: a systematic review. Am J Epidemiol. 2022;In press.
    
    

24. 24.Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, Payne J, Gonzalez N, Conde JG. Research electronic data capture (REDCap)—A metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. Journal of Biomedical Informatics. 2009;42(2):377–81. doi: 10.1016/j.jbi.2008.08.010.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.jbi.2008.08.010&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=18929686&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F04%2F07%2F2022.03.07.22271661.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000264958800018&link_type=ISI) 

25. 25.Harris PA, Taylor R, Minor BL, Elliott V, Fernandez M, O’Neal L, et al. The REDCap consortium: Building an international community of software platform partners. Journal of Biomedical Informatics. 2019;95. doi: 10.1016/j.jbi.2019.103208.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.jbi.2019.103208&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=31078660&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F04%2F07%2F2022.03.07.22271661.atom) 

26. 26.Python Software Foundation. Python Language Reference. 3.5.9 ed2015.
    
    

27. 27.Cock PJ, Antao T, Chang JT, Chapman BA, Cox CJ, Dalke A, et al. Biopython: freely available Python tools for computational molecular biology and bioinformatics. Bioinformatics. 2009;25(11):1422–3. Epub 2009/03/24. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btp163. PubMed PMID: 19304878; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC2682512.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/bioinformatics/btp163&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=19304878&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F04%2F07%2F2022.03.07.22271661.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000266109500013&link_type=ISI) 

28. 28.Harris CR, Millman KJ, van der Walt SJ, Gommers R, Virtanen P, Cournapeau D, et al. Array programming with NumPy. Nature. 2020;585(7825):357–62. doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=32939066&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F04%2F07%2F2022.03.07.22271661.atom) 

29. 29.R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. 4.0.2 ed. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2020.
    
    

30. 30.Yoshida K, Bartel A. tableone: Create ‘Table 1’ to Describe Baseline Characteristics with or without Propensity Score Weights. R package version 0.12.0. ed2020.
    
    

31. 31.Silge J, Robinson D. tidytext: Text Mining and Analysis Using Tidy Data Principles in R. The Journal of Open Source Software. 2016;1(3). doi: 10.21105/joss.00037.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.21105/joss.00037&link_type=DOI) 

32. 32.Wickham H, Averick M, Bryan J, Chang W, McGowan L, François R, et al. Welcome to the Tidyverse. Journal of Open Source Software. 2019;4(43). doi: 10.21105/joss.01686.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.21105/joss.01686&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=15461798&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F04%2F07%2F2022.03.07.22271661.atom) 

33. 33.Castro M, King TS, Kunselman SJ, Cabana MD, Denlinger L, Holguin F, et al. Effect of vitamin D3 on asthma treatment failures in adults with symptomatic asthma and lower vitamin D levels: the VIDA randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2014;311(20):2083–91. doi: 10.1001/jama.2014.5052. PubMed PMID: 24838406; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4217655.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1001/jama.2014.5052&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=24838406&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F04%2F07%2F2022.03.07.22271661.atom) 

34. 34.Loveman M. Is “Race” Essential? American Sociological Review. 1999;64(6):891–8.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.2307/2657409&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000084780100008&link_type=ISI) 

35. 35.Bonilla-Silva E. From bi-racial to tri-racial: Towards a new system of racial stratification in the USA. Ethnic and Racial Studies. 2004;27(6):931–50. doi: 10.1080/0141987042000268530.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1080/0141987042000268530&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000223840400004&link_type=ISI) 

36. 36.Cornell SE, Hartmann D. Ethnicity and race: making identities in a changing world. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Pine Forge Press, an Imprint of Sage Publication; 2007.
    
    

37. 37.Bonilla-Silva E, Dietrich DR. The Latin Americanization of Racial Stratification in the U.S. In: Hall RE, editor. Racism in the 21st Centruy. New York, NY: Springer; 2008. p. 151–70.
    
    

38. 38.Roth WD. Race migrations: Latinos and the cultural transformation of race.. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press; 2012.
    
    

39. 39.Dennis AC, Chung EO, Lodge EK, Martinez RA, Wilbur RE. Looking Back to Leap Forward: A Framework for Operationalizing the Structural Racism Construct in Minority Health Research. Ethn Dis. 2021;31(Suppl 1):301–10. Epub 2021/05/29. doi: 10.18865/ed.31.S1.301. PubMed PMID: 34045832; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC8143855.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.18865/ed.31.S1.301&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=34045832&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F04%2F07%2F2022.03.07.22271661.atom) 

40. 40.Saini A. Superior: The Return of Race Science. 1st ed: Beacon Press; 2019. 242 p.
    
    

41. 41.Graves JL. The Emperor’s New Clothes: Biological Theories of Race at the Millennium. New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press; 2001.
    
    

42. 42.Duster T. Lessons from History: Why Race and Ethnicity Have Played a Major Role in Biomedical Research. Journal of law, medicine & ethics. 2006;34(3):487–96.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1111/j.1748-720X.2006.00060.x&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=17144170&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F04%2F07%2F2022.03.07.22271661.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000240230700003&link_type=ISI) 

43. 43.Corbie-Smith G, Thomas SB, Williams MV, Moody-Ayers S. Attitudes and Beliefs of African Americans Toward Participation in Medical Research. J Gen Intern Med. 1999;14:537–46. doi: 10.1046/j.1525-1497.1999.07048.x. PubMed Central PMCID: PMC1496744.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1046/j.1525-1497.1999.07048.x&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10491242&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F04%2F07%2F2022.03.07.22271661.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000082595600002&link_type=ISI) 

44. 44.Fisher JA, Kalbaugh CA. Challenging assumptions about minority participation in US clinical research. Am J Public Health. 2011;101(12):2217–22. Epub 20111020. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2011.300279. PubMed PMID: 22021285; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3222419.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.2105/AJPH.2011.300279&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=22021285&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F04%2F07%2F2022.03.07.22271661.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000297140900008&link_type=ISI) 

45. 45.Guevara JP, Wade R, Aysola J. Racial and Ethnic Diversity at Medical Schools — Why Aren’t We There Yet? N Engl J Med. 2021;385(19):1732–4.
    
    

46. 46.Amutah C, Greenidge K, Mante A, Munyikwa M, Surya S, Higginbotham E, et al. Misrepresenting Race — The Role of Medical Schools in Propagating Physician Bias. N Engl J Med. 2021;384(9):872–8.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1056/NEJMms2025768&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=33406326&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F04%2F07%2F2022.03.07.22271661.atom) 

47. 47.Aaron DG, Stanford FC. Medicine, structural racism, and systems. Soc Sci Med. 2022:114856. Epub 20220228. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2022.114856. PubMed PMID: 35282989.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.socscimed.2022.114856&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=35282989&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F04%2F07%2F2022.03.07.22271661.atom) 

48. 48.Braun L. Race, ethnicity and lung function: a brief history. Can J Respir Ther. 2015;54(4):99–101.
    
    

49. 49.Hoffman KM, Trawalter S, Axt JR, Oliver MN. Racial bias in pain assessment and treatment recommendations, and false beliefs about biological differences between blacks and whites. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2016;113(16):4296–301. Epub 2016/04/05. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1516047113. PubMed PMID: 27044069; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4843483.
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NDoicG5hcyI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czoxMToiMTEzLzE2LzQyOTYiO3M6NDoiYXRvbSI7czo1MDoiL21lZHJ4aXYvZWFybHkvMjAyMy8wNC8wNy8yMDIyLjAzLjA3LjIyMjcxNjYxLmF0b20iO31zOjg6ImZyYWdtZW50IjtzOjA6IiI7fQ==) 

50. 50.International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals: Writing and Editing for Biomedical Publication. ICMJE. 2004:1–15.
    
    

51. 51.International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals: Updated December 20192019:[1–19 pp.]. Available from: [http://www.icmje.org/icmje-recommendations.pdf](http://www.icmje.org/icmje-recommendations.pdf).
    
    

52. 52.International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Journals stating that they follow the ICMJE Recommendations: Annals of Internal Medicine & American College of Physicians; 2022 [cited 2022 Jan 27, 2022]. Available from: [http://www.icmje.org/journals-following-the-icmje-recommendations/](http://www.icmje.org/journals-following-the-icmje-recommendations/).
    
    

53. 53.Winker MA. Measuring Race and Ethnicity: Why and How? JAMA. 2004;292(13):1612–4.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1001/jama.292.13.1612&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=15467065&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F04%2F07%2F2022.03.07.22271661.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000224254600030&link_type=ISI) 

54. 54.Flanagin A, Frey T, Christiansen SL, Bauchner H. The Reporting of Race and Ethnicity in Medical and Science Journals: Comments Invited. JAMA. 2021;325(11):1049–52.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1001/jama.2021.2104&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=33616604&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F04%2F07%2F2022.03.07.22271661.atom) 

55. 55.Flanagin A, Frey T, Christiansen SL. Updated Guidance on the Reporting of Race and Ethnicity in Medical and Science Journals. JAMA. 2021;326(7):621–7. Epub August 17, 2021. doi: 10.1001/jama.2021.13304.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1001/jama.2021.13304&link_type=DOI) 

56. 56.Lett E, Asabor E, Beltran S, Michelle Cannon A, Arah OA. Conceptualizing, Contextualizing, and Operationalizing Race in Quantitative Health Sciences Research. Ann Fam Med. 2022. Epub 20220119. doi: 10.1370/afm.2792. PubMed PMID: 35045967.
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6ODoiYW5uYWxzZm0iO3M6NToicmVzaWQiO3M6ODoiMjAvMi8xNTciO3M6NDoiYXRvbSI7czo1MDoiL21lZHJ4aXYvZWFybHkvMjAyMy8wNC8wNy8yMDIyLjAzLjA3LjIyMjcxNjYxLmF0b20iO31zOjg6ImZyYWdtZW50IjtzOjA6IiI7fQ==) 

57. 57.Hardeman RR, Murphy KA, Karbeah J, Kozhimannil KB. Naming Institutionalized Racism in the Public Health Literature: A Systematic Literature Review. Public Health Rep. 2018;133(3):240–9. Epub 2018/04/04. doi: 10.1177/0033354918760574. PubMed PMID: 29614234; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5958385.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1177/0033354918760574&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=29614234&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F04%2F07%2F2022.03.07.22271661.atom) 

58. 58.Duggan CP, Kurpadm A, Stanford FC, Sunguya B,  Wells JC. Race, ethnicity, and racism in the nutrition literature: an update for 2020. Am J Clin Nutr. 2020;112:1409–14. doi: 10.1093/.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/ajcn/nqaa341&link_type=DOI) 

59. 59.American Psychological Association: APA Task Force on Race and Ethnicity Guidelines in Psychology. Race and Ethnicity Guidelines in Psychology: Promoting Responsiveness and Equity. 2019.
    
    

60. 60.Chew M, Das P, Aujla M, Horton R. Advancing racial and ethnic equity in science, medicine, and health: a call for papers. The Lancet. 2021;398(10308):1287–9. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(21)02095-x.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/s0140-6736(21)02095-x&link_type=DOI) 

61. 61.Omi M, Winant H. Racial Formation in the United States. 3rd. Ed. ed2015.
    
    

62. 62.Roth WD. The multiple dimensions of race. Ethnic and Racial Studies. 2016;39(8):1398–406. doi: 10.1080/01419870.2016.1153693.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1080/01419870.2016.1153693&link_type=DOI) 

63. 63.Meer N. Ethnicity. Key Concepts in Race and Ethnicity: SAGE Publications Ltd; 2014. p. 38–42.
    
    

64. 64.Grammond S. Disentangling Race and Indigenous Status: The Role of Ethnicity. Queen’s Law Journal. 2008;33(2):487–518.
    
    

65. 65.Lopez D, Espiritu Y. Panethnicity in the United States: A theoretical framework. Ethnic and Racial Studies. 1990;13(2):198–224. doi: 10.1080/01419870.1990.9993669.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1080/01419870.1990.9993669&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=A1990ED13700003&link_type=ISI) 

66. 66.Okamoto DG, Mora GC. Panethnicity. Annual Review of Sociology. 2014;40:219–39. doi: 10.1146/annurev-soc-071913-043201.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1146/annurev-soc-071913-043201&link_type=DOI) 

67. 67.Monk EP. The Unceasing Significance of Colorism: Skin Tone Stratification in the United States. Daedalus. 2021;150(2):76–90. doi: 10.1162/daed\_a\_01847.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access\_num=10.1162/daed_a_01847&link_type=DOI) 

68. 68.Arthur CM, Katkin ES. Making a Case for the Examination of Ethnicity of Blacks in United States Health Research. Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved. 2006;17:25–36.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1353/hpu.2006.0017&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=16520504&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F04%2F07%2F2022.03.07.22271661.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000235381700006&link_type=ISI) 

69. 69.Williams DR, Jackson JS. Race/Ethnicity and the 2000 Census: Recommendations for African American and Other Black Populations in the United States. Am J Public Health. 2000;90(11):1728–30.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.2105/AJPH.90.11.1728&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=11076240&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F04%2F07%2F2022.03.07.22271661.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000165055000011&link_type=ISI) 

70. 70.Guidotti-Hernandez NM. Affective communities and millennial desires: Latinx, or why my computer won’t recognize Latina/o. Cultural Dynamics. 2017;29(3):141–59.
    
    

71. 71.Rodríguez CE. Changing Race: Latinos, the Census, and the History of Ethnicity in the United States2000.