The Impact of Gender on Pediatric Surgical Access and Outcomes in Africa ======================================================================== * Sacha Williams * Olivia Serhan * Jenny Wang * Christian Guindi * Elena Guadagno * Maeve Trudeau * Emannuel Ameh * Kokila Lakhoo * Dan Poenaru ## Abstract **Introduction** Girls, whose care is often affected by barriers steeped in gender inequity, may be at higher risk of poor surgical outcomes. This study explored the impact of gender on pediatric surgical care in Africa. **Methods** Differences in access to care and clinical outcomes for boys and girls were examined for pediatric surgical conditions that do not differ by physiological sex. A systematic review of African pediatric surgical studies ensued, followed by a random effects meta-analysis, and risk of bias assessment. **Results** Of the 12281 records retrieved, 54 were selected for review. Most studies were retrospective (57.4%), single-site (94.4%), from Egypt, Nigeria, Ghana, or Ethiopia (55.6%), focussed on gastrointestinal conditions (63.0%), published in 2010 or sooner (85.1%), had study durations of 5 years or less (68.5%), and cohorts of less than 200 children (57.4%). Sixty percent reported the outcome of mortality. Meta-analysis odds ratios revealed surgery was performed 3.6 times more often on boys (95% CI: 2.6, 4.9); and mortality was 1.6 times greater for girls (95% CI: 1.3, 2.0). **Conclusion** African girls appear to face gender inequities in pediatric surgical care. Findings will be further explored in a mixed-methods study. **Level of evidence** **I** **Highlights** * Gender disparities in global surgical care have been documented in the African adult population. However gender specific differentials in surgical access and outcomes have yet to be documented for African pediatric populations. * This study provides first-time evidence of gender inequity in pediatric surgical care in Africa. Keywords * Surgical outcomes * mortality * gender disparities * LMICs ## Introduction Children remain among the most vulnerable populations worldwide. As their numbers rapidly expand, the global burden of disease also increases [1–9]. In fact, estimates suggest that currently 1.7 billion children lack access to surgery that is both safe and affordable [10]. A significant proportion of these children reside in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), that are frequently operating with limited resources and infrastructure [11,12]. In Africa, the population demographic is approximately 50% pediatric; by corollary, the surgical disease burden is critical [11,12]. However, the surgical care of children is an aspect of child health that continues to be inadequate, despite its potential for reducing or even eliminating child morbidity and/or mortality [13]. *Gender* is a social construct that may further compound the issue. It can be defined as a set of characteristics, roles, and behaviors ascribed to perceptions of masculinity and femininity [13,14], potentially mutable according to times and/or society norms and values. While gender may intersect with *sex*, they are not necessarily the same, as the latter tends to focus on biological factors like chromosomes, hormones, or reproductive organs. [14,15] Historically, gender has been implicated in hierarchical power imbalances, whereby, within the male-female dichotomy, females were deemed inferior [15]. As a result, gender norms may influence children’s health and well-being. For example, in certain African societies, gender inequity has been reported to manifest as social and/or structural barriers negatively impacting females [15]. Moreover, recent reports have suggested that, in some African countries, women seek care for their surgical conditions less commonly than men, and those who do undergo surgery experience poorer surgical outcomes [16–20]. Despite the evidence of gender disparity in the adult African population, potential gender differentials in the surgical care of African children have not been documented to date. This study sought to address the knowledge gap by exploring whether there were gender disparities in access, and postoperative outcomes for African children requiring surgery. ## Methods ### Caveats, Definitions Although gender and biological sex may overlap, they are not necessarily the same, as sex is centered solely upon biological factors (e.g. reproductive organs, chromosomes etc). However, since global databases, registries, and studies continue to classify cohorts according to sex instead of gender, sex was used as a proxy for gender, particularly in cases where *conditions should not have sex differences, since they manifest equally in boys and girls* (equal sex ratio). There would be no biological, physiological, nor anatomical reason for differences in incidence by sex. Any conditions specific to boys (e.g. male circumcision, testicular torsion, etc.), or girls alone (e.g. ovarian cysts, pregnancy, etc.) were excluded from the analysis in this study. Only gender neutral pediatric surgical conditions were examined. Therefore, any deviations from standard 1:1 or predicted sex ratios in the conditions studied were attributed to gender-based factors. This methodology was confirmed with leading chairs in sex and gender research, an Equity Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) Advisor, and our African collaborators. Cis- or transmales or females were not evaluated, as these distinctions were not reported in the included studies. The study explored the primary outcomes of reported access to care and postoperative outcomes. Access was defined as the number of actual surgical interventions performed by sex. Surgical outcomes included the following: mortality, surgical site infection (SSI), and any other reported adverse effects or complications. ### Registration and Reporting Checklist The study protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42023395021), the international registry for systematic reviews [21], and conducted in accordance with the guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement [22]. ### Search Strategy and Information Sources A comprehensive electronic literature search was conducted by a senior medical librarian using the following databases from inception through December 2022 with no language restrictions: Medline (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCO), Cochrane (Wiley), Global Health (Ovid), Web of Science (Clarivate Analytics), Africa Wide Information (EBSCO) and Global Index Medicus (WHO). The search strategy involved text words from the title, abstract, keywords, or subject headings to retrieve papers on gender inequality, pediatric surgery, and surgical care in Africa, without language restriction. Various gender and sex terms were searched, including sex/gender characteristics or factors, gender identity, and minority groups. Conference abstracts, books and book chapters were excluded in Embase. The full search strategy is located in **Appendix A.** PRISMA and PRISMA-S extension were used and are located in **Appendix B** ### Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria Study inclusion criteria were: 1. quantitative research papers, with 2. study cohorts under 19 years of age, 3. situated in an African setting, with 4. sex/gender data, surgical access and postoperative outcomes data, 5. for surgical conditions that occur equally in boys and girls. Exclusion criteria included: qualitative research, editorials/commentaries, conference abstracts, books, book chapters, populations over 19 years of age, gender-specific surgical conditions, studies outside of Africa, without sex/gender data, surgical access and/or outcomes data. ### Study Selection Duplications of eligible studies were removed in EndNote X9 (EndNote X9 2023, Clarivate, Philadelphia, PA, USA) and uploaded into Rayyan software (Rayyan 2022, Boston, MA, USA), for literature screening by multiple independent reviewers (SW, JW, CG, OS). Titles and abstracts were first screened for meeting study eligibility. In instances of disagreement, discussion and full consensus was sought amongst reviewers. If consensus could not be found, a senior reviewer (DP) was available for adjudication. Full papers of all abstracts deemed potential for inclusion were subsequently retrieved and independently screened (SW, OS, JW) for adherence to study criteria. ### Data Collection The PRISMA flow diagram was drafted from the finalized list of relevant pediatric surgical papers. (**Figure 1**) Pertinent data variables were extracted from the studies selected for inclusion and placed in an Excel spreadsheet (Excel 2021, Microsoft, Richmond, VA, USA). Variables included: title, authors, year, journal, country, surgical subspecialty (pediatric surgery, neurosurgery, plastic surgery, ophthalmology, urology, orthopedics, burn, trauma surgery), diagnosis/condition, procedure/intervention, duration of study, population type (pediatric, mixed), total population, mean/median age, number of males/females, male/female postoperative complications, mortality). Fig. 1 PRISMA flowchart identifying eligible studies Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021;372:n71. doi: 10.1136/bmj.n71 Sex ratios (male:female) for: surgical access, postoperative complications (excluding death), mortality, and proportions of deaths by sex were calculated when not provided directly in the studies (**Appendix C**), in support of the Meta-Analysis. The rationale for the proportions of deaths by sex calculations was that the number of boys in the studies generally exceeded the number of girls. So it would enable one to see the mortality rates within each sub-cohort (e.g. male, female), in light of their vastly different total numbers. ### Meta-Analysis Given the wide array of surgical disciplines and measured indices in the included studies, a random effects meta-analysis was conducted. Statistical analyses were performed in Jamovi v.2.3 (Jamovi Project, Sydney, Australia) and STATA 18 (StataCorp, 2023, College Station, TX, USA) to ensure accuracy, and for graphical representations [23,24]. Results were calculated in Excel (Excel 2021, Microsoft, Richmond, VA, USA) to confirm accuracy. An alpha level of p < 0.05 indicated statistical significance. The log odds ratio was utilized as the outcome measure. Heterogeneity (Tau2) was approximated via the restricted maximum-likelihood estimator [24]. The I2, H2 statistic, and Cochrane’s Q test were also calculated to assess heterogeneity. Prediction intervals for true outcomes were calculated for I2 > 40% and/or tau2 > 0 as applicable. Forest plots were created for variables, access and postoperative outcomes to display significance. Analysis in the form of studentized residuals and Cook’s distances were performed to identify outliers and/or influential studies in the model. Those with a studentized residual greater than the 100 x (1 – 0.05/2k)th percentile of a normal distribution were considered to be potential outliers. Studies were deemed influential if they had a Cook’s distance greater than the median plus six times the interquartile range of the Cook’s distances. Funnel plots were created to assess publication bias. Potential funnel plot asymmetry was verified via the rank correlation, and regression tests. ### Quality Assessment The quality of the evidence of the studies (prospective, cross-sectional, case review) was analyzed using the Risk of Bias in Non-Randomized Studies – of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool [25]. This was done to evaluate risk of bias in estimates of safety or efficacy of interventions employed in non-randomized studies. The ROBINS-I instrument evaluated domains pre- and at-intervention (bias due to confounding, in the selection of participants into the study, and in the classification of outcomes), post-intervention (bias due to deviations from intended interventions and missing data, in outcomes measurement, and in the selection of reported results). Decisions were made on a scale ranging from: low, moderate, serious, critical risk of bias, or no information. ## Results ### Study Selection The PRISMA flowchart is illustrated in **Figure 1**. The electronic literature search in the eight databases yielded 12,281 records. After duplicates were removed using EndNote, 10,579 records were available for screening. Titles/abstracts were screened in Rayyan for adherence to study criteria and resulted in 1,534 abstracts selected for potential inclusion. Two papers could not be retrieved, resulting in 1,532 eligible reports. Retrieval of full papers and subsequent review yielded 54 sex-disaggregated papers selected for inclusion. Reasons for paper exclusion ranged from: sole focus on access or outcomes (n = 460, n = 2 respectively), obstetrics and gynecology cases (n = 337), female genital mutilation (n = 265), male sexual health (n = 241), female-specific fistula (n = 83), ineligible population (n = 64), and case reports (n = 26). The finalized list of included pediatric surgical studies, involving gender neutral conditions, and their recorded variables are detailed in **Appendix D**. ### Study Characteristics The included studies were predominantly single-center (n = 54; 94.4%), retrospective cohorts (n = 31; 57.4%), from either Egypt, Nigeria, Ghana, or Ethiopia (n = 30; 55.6%), focusing on pediatric surgery for gender neutral conditions (n = 34; 63.0%), published on or after 2010 (n = 46; 85.1%; range: 1980-2023), with a study duration less than 5 years (n = 37; 68.5%; range: < 1 year – 22 years), and with cohorts under 200 children (n = 31; 57.4%). Thirty-three (61.1%) of the papers reported the surgical outcome of mortality, while 21 studies (38.9%) reported other complications. (**Table 1**). View this table: [Table 1](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/02/11/2024.02.10.24302627/T1) Table 1 Characteristics of included studies (n = 54) ### Sex Ratios The sex ratio (male:female) for surgical access, in these studies of gender neutral conditions, exceeded one in 90% of the cohorts (mean = 2.6), implying surgeries were predominantly performed on males. A third of the sex ratios for non-mortality postoperative complications also exceeded one, suggesting a lower rate of complications for males than females. Sixty percent of the mortality sex ratios were greater than 1 (mean = 1.9), suggesting a higher mortality rate for males than females. However, a more in depth analysis of the sex ratio for the proportions of death by sex, revealed that the majority of these values (60.0%) were below 1 (mean = 0.8). This suggested that there was a higher proportion of death among females than males. The proportion of girls that died was actually 1.3 times that of the proportion of boys, despite the expectation of gender neutrality. ### Meta-Analysis #### A) Access For the 54 studies included in the analysis, involving conditions that should have had the same values for boys and girls, males were more likely (94.0%) to have access to surgery than females (**Figure 2a**). Based on the random effects model, the average ratio was calculated, and found to be significantly different from zero (p < 0.0001), suggesting the results were not due to random chance. It revealed an odds ratio of 3.6 (95% CI: 2.6, 4.9), suggesting that males received surgery 3.6 times more frequently than females. Further testing indicated that there was high heterogeneity among the studies (Tau2 = 1.2, I2 = 98.7%, H2 = 76.5, Q = 1174.5; p < 0.001). As a result, a 95% prediction interval, or range was calculated (−0.9 – 3.5). According to studentized residuals, one study may be an outlier [24*]; and in concert with another study [15*] may be overly influential. Exploration of publication bias via funnel plot did not indicate asymmetry (**Figure 2b**). This was reinforced via Egger’s regression (0.6, p = 0.6), Spearman rank correlation (0.1, p = 0.5), and fail-safe N testing (41154, p < 0.001). ![Fig. 2](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2024/02/11/2024.02.10.24302627/F2.medium.gif) [Fig. 2](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/02/11/2024.02.10.24302627/F2) Fig. 2 **(a)** Forest plot of access (log scale) odds ratio (n = 54); **(b)** Funnel plot representing publication bias #### B) Adverse Postoperative Outcomes - Mortality For the 29 studies included in the analysis, involving conditions that should have had the same values for boys and girls, mortality was higher for females than males. (76.0%). (**Figure 3a**). Based on the random effects model, the average ratio was calculated, and found to be significantly different from zero (p < 0.0001), suggesting the results were not due to random chance. It revealed an odds ratio of 1.6 (95% CI: 1.3, 2.0), suggesting that females died 1.6 times more frequently than males. Further testing indicated that there was moderate heterogeneity among the studies (Tau2 = 0.1, I2 = 41.7%, H2 = 1.7, Q = 41.2; p = 0.05). As a result, a 95% prediction interval, or range was calculated (−0.1 – 1.1). According to studentized residuals, there were no outliers; while another study [15*] may be overly influential [45*]. Exploration of publication bias via funnel plot did not indicate asymmetry (**Figure 3b**). This was reinforced via Egger’s regression (−0.2, p = 0.8), Spearman rank correlation (0.1, p = 0.7), and fail-safe N testing (336, p < 0.001). ![Fig. 3](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2024/02/11/2024.02.10.24302627/F3.medium.gif) [Fig. 3](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/02/11/2024.02.10.24302627/F3) Fig. 3 (a) Forest plot of access (log scale) odds ratio (n = 29); (b) Funnel plot representing publication bias ### Risk of Bias Assessment Each of the 22 eligible studies for ROBINS-I assessment demonstrated a risk of bias in at least one domain (**Table 2**). Six of the 7 domains had majority judgements of low risk of bias. The domain involving bias due to confounding was the only one demonstrating critical and serious risk of biases. Across the 2 grouped domains (pre- / at-intervention, post-intervention domains), most of the bias was low to moderate (72.7-95.5% for each domain), with the former grouping (pre- / at-intervention) also containing 6 studies at serious risk of bias. One study had missing data for some domains [53*]. View this table: [Table 2](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/02/11/2024.02.10.24302627/T2) Table 2 ROBINS-I Risk of bias assessment results (n = 22) ## Discussion Surgery is an indispensable component of healthcare, and essential to address the burden of disease worldwide [9,26]. For every child to be granted the right to safe, timely, and affordable care, access to surgery and good postoperative outcomes are crucial. The current study has for the first time explored, via systematic review, gender disparities in surgical access and outcomes for African children. This exploration was predicated on the suspicion that gender inequities may adversely affect the health and well-being of girls. Gender disparities have been documented to affect children in many areas, including education. As a result, the United Nations established its Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) #4 and #5 (equitable quality education, gender equality and empowerment) to promote universal access to, and completion of, primary education, thus closing the gender gap [27]. Notwithstanding, many African countries have yet to achieve educational parity by gender [28]. According to UNESCO, one in four girls are likely to be out of school in sub-Saharan Africa [28]. In addition, these girls are more likely than their male counterparts to never enroll in school [28]. Friedman et al., in their modeling and forecast of educational inequality as it pertains to the 2030 SDG targets, reported that the education of females is predicted to lag that of males in sub-Saharan Africa through 2030 [29]. Oruko et al., in their exploration of the educational access and outcomes of Kenyan children, reported that despite the government providing free primary education, fewer girls reached secondary school level; and those that remained in school were less likely than boys to achieve a grade of C+ or better in their national exams [30]. These examples demonstrate the disadvantaged position of girls compared to boys in the educational realm. Gender disparities in the surgical care of children have been documented tangentially in a few isolated reports. For example, Sakita et al., in their exploration of clinical profiles and outcomes of children presenting to the emergency department of a Tanzanian hospital with undifferentiated abdominal pain, reported a low proportion of girls (32.6%) in their study population [26]. Moreover, girls were associated with higher in-hospital mortality in their regression analysis [26]. Peiffer et al., in their exploration of factors associated with adverse outcomes (e.g. prolonged length of stay, readmission, and mortality) following surgery in a Ghanaian regional hospital, found that although only 10% of the cohort were girls, female gender was significantly associated with in-hospital postoperative mortality [15*]. When looking at pediatric burn care in their investigation of potential relationships among patient demographics, thermal injury and mortality in a Malawi burn unit, Purcell et al. demonstrated that fewer females presented (44.1%), and that those who did were in more severe states (% total body surface area) [9*]. Perhaps due in part to the severity, the authors reported higher rates of surgical intervention for these girls, and interestingly, a lack of increased odds of mortality due to female gender [9*]. Allorto et al., while investigating factors associated with delayed children’s surgery and mortality following burn injuries in a South African burn service, reported fewer females in their cohort (44.5%); yet they were less likely to undergo early surgical intervention, they had higher mortality, and lengths of stay [12*]. Pediatric ophthalmology studies have identified a significant male predominance at presentation. For example, in reports concerning the proportions of children presenting for cataract surgery in a Nigerian ophthalmology clinic, Ugalahi et al. noted the paltry number of girls (44.4%) [31]. In their evaluation of several African child eye health tertiary facilities (CEHTFs), Adhisesha Reddy et al. found access disparities favouring boys for children receiving cataract surgery and follow up; they also noted little effective means to reduce the inequity [32]. Courtright et al., in their analysis of child recipients of cataract surgery at two Tanzanian CEHTFs found a sex ratio of 1.48 [33]. Eriksen et al. reported few girls (36.4%) in their examination of an active surgical service for children in a Tanzanian tertiary eye care referral facility [34]. They also found girls were less likely to attend follow up visits [34]. When discussing pediatric surgical disease, it must be acknowledged that there are certain diseases that affect boys more than girls, and vice versa. For example, congenital inguinal hernia is a very common pediatric condition, for which its surgical repair has been described in the literature as having a sex ratio prevalence (male:female) ranging from 2 to 18:1 [35, 36]. In Africa specifically, Igwe et al. reported a sex ratio of 5:1 in their comparison of laparoscopic versus open inguinal hernia repair, in a Nigerian university teaching hospital [37]. In addition, trauma may occur more often in males than females, as noted by Aluisio et al. and Halawa et al. in their Rwandan and Egyptian reports [38, 39]. Nevertheless, this current study excluded conditions that affected predominantly boys or girls, as a result of unique anatomy or physiology. As indicated in the methods definitions and caveats sub-section, this study incorporated conditions with equal sex ratios, meaning they occurred equally in boys and girls. In this systematic review and meta-analysis of sex-disaggregated studies it was demonstrated that surgical interventions were more likely to be performed on males, and that females were more likely to have poor postoperative outcomes, including death. These findings are based on an analysis of 54 papers, mostly retrospective and single-site in nature, focusing on pediatric cohorts of up to 200 children, stemming from four African countries, mostly focusing on pediatric surgery. The male predominance in surgical access, and female predominance in adverse postoperative outcomes including mortality, were highlighted in sex ratio calculations, then reinforced through forest plot odds ratios in the meta-analysis. There are 2 types of models for a meta-analysis: a fixed and random effects model. The latter was more appropriate for this study, because it assumed that the true effect could vary by study due to the differences among them (heterogeneity) [40, 41]. For example, the included studies varied by the size of their cohorts, location, types of surgical intervention, and other demographics. This could have resulted in different effect sizes. In the meta-analysis, there was high heterogeneity when evaluating access, and moderate heterogeneity when examining postoperative mortality. As a result, a prediction interval was calculated, and the vast majority of studies’ true effects were positive. The results were also supported by both the lack of statistical significance for statistical indices, and the absence of funnel plot asymmetry, both refuting publication bias. In contrast to the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool (RoB2) [42], the recommended tool for randomized control trials, the Risk of Bias in Non-Randomized Studies – of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool is used to evaluate the quality of the evidence for non-randomized studies [25]. In this study, only 22 of the studies were eligible for ROBINS-I assessment. These studies’ risk of bias level by domain and intervention were described (risk of bias assessment results sub-section) and illustrated (Table 2). Unfortunately all of the studies assessed had a risk of bias in at least one domain, which limited the strength of the result interpretation. Within the domain for confounding, there was both critical and serious risk of bias in approximately 50% of the studies, which contributed to serious risk of bias across the pre-/at-intervention domains. As a result, the possibility of at least one domain not being appropriately measured or controlled cannot be excluded - nor can the possibility of confounding be entirely overlooked. This study is a systematic review, providing a snapshot of the literature located in selected databases, published from specific African countries, during a discrete period of time. Although the analysis of publication bias was not significant according to the funnel plot (and associated statistical indices), the included studies represented approximately a third of all the countries in Africa. This study was a summary of what was reported. At no point did this study place judgment on African values, their family unit, their healthcare providers’ intentions or capabilities. Moreover, this study should not be viewed as an indictment of Africa’s treatment of its children, as similar findings have been reported in high-income countries. For example, in their thirteen year review of the epidemiology of pediatric surgery in the US, Rabbitts et al. reported female gender among other factors associated with decreased likelihood of surgical intervention on multivariate analysis [43]. In their examination of social determinants on pediatric trauma outcomes in the US South, Dickens et al. reported that girls had lower odds of being referred for rehabilitation services, and Black girls lowest of all groups [44]. In their analysis of access to renal transplantation, through a multinational European collaboration, Hogan et al. reported girls had lower probability of receiving preemptive transplantation, for reasons only partially attributed to medical factors [45]. In essence, what cannot be overstated is that findings of gender differentials in surgical access and/or postoperative outcomes have similarly been reported in high income countries; so gender disparities are not solely specific to Africa. Other study limitations include: generalizability, the small number of included studies, the quality of data they presented, their age, and potential confounders (e.g. geographical location of participants, lack of infrastructure, etc). Studies with potential risk of bias were not removed from the analysis, nor was the one study that may have been a highly influential outlier. This study was conducted in constant consultation with several African collaborators, who have attained positions of considerable distinction in pediatric surgery. In terms of the next phase in this study, collaboration with these colleagues and other African stakeholders (e.g. healthcare providers, caregivers, former patients, etc), is underway to uncover the obstacles to gender equity in pediatric surgical care, and to develop a comprehensive, sustainable mitigation plan to reduce the disparities via a mixed methods approach in Africa. ## Conclusion African girls are a vulnerable population who, in addition to facing the limitations of residing in many low-resource settings, may be subjected to additional barriers of gender inequity. This study’s findings suggest that although surgeries are performed more often on males, females have a higher likelihood of adverse postoperative outcomes. This first-time summary of evidence of gender disparities in pediatric surgical access and outcomes in Africa is an urgent call to action, hopefully prompting not only further investigation, but above all tangible change. ## Disclosures ### N/A ## Author Contributions All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection and analysis was performed by SW, DP. The first draft of the manuscript was written by SW, and all authors edited, read, and approved the final manuscript. ## Data Availability All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors. ## Appendix A Search Strategy ### Databases Searched #### Africa-Wide Information [EBSCO] (March 31, 2022) View this table: [Table3](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/02/11/2024.02.10.24302627/T3) #### CINAHL Plus [EBSCO] (March 31, 2022) View this table: [Table4](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/02/11/2024.02.10.24302627/T4) #### Cochrane [Wiley] (March 31, 2022) View this table: [Table5](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/02/11/2024.02.10.24302627/T5) #### Embase [Ovid] (March 31, 2022) View this table: [Table6](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/02/11/2024.02.10.24302627/T6) #### Global Health [Ovid] (March 31, 2022) View this table: [Table7](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/02/11/2024.02.10.24302627/T7) #### Global Index Medicus [WHO] (March 31, 2022) View this table: [Table8](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/02/11/2024.02.10.24302627/T8) #### Medline [Ovid] (March 31, 2022) View this table: [Table9](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/02/11/2024.02.10.24302627/T9) #### Web of Science [Clarivate Analytics] (March 31, 2022) View this table: [Table10](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/02/11/2024.02.10.24302627/T10) ## Appendix B PRISMA Checklist View this table: [Table11](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/02/11/2024.02.10.24302627/T11) ### PRISMA-S Checklist View this table: [Table12](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/02/11/2024.02.10.24302627/T12) PRISMA-S: An Extension to the PRISMA Statement for Reporting Literature Searches in Systematic Reviews, Rethlefsen ML, Kirtley S, Waffenschmidt S, Ayala AP, Moher D, Page MJ, Koffel JB, PRISMA-S Group. Last updated February 27, 2020. ## Appendix C Access, adverse postoperative outcomes, and mortality calculations View this table: [Table13](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/02/11/2024.02.10.24302627/T13) ## Appendix D Finalized list of studies for meta-analysis (n = 54) View this table: [Table14](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/02/11/2024.02.10.24302627/T14) ## Footnotes * **Category:** Systematic review and meta-analysis, This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. * Received February 10, 2024. * Revision received February 10, 2024. * Accepted February 11, 2024. * © 2024, Posted by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory This pre-print is available under a Creative Commons License (Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 International), CC BY-NC-ND 4.0, as described at [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) ## References 1. [1].United Nations Development of Economic and Social Affairs: Sustainable Development. The 17 Goals. [Internet]. New York, United States of America: UN; 2023 [Cited 2023 May 20]. Available from: [https://sdgs.un.org/goals](https://sdgs.un.org/goals). 2. [2].United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. The Sustainable Development Goals Report. [Internet]. New York, United States of America: UN; 2021 [Cited 2023 June 20]. Available from: doi:10.18356/9789210056083. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.18356/9789210056083&link_type=DOI) 3. 3.Mock CN, Donkor P, Gawande A, Jamison DT, Kruk ME, Debas HT, et al. Essential surgery: key messages from Disease Control Priorities, 3rd edition. Lancet. 2015 May 30;385(9983):2209–19. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/S0140-6736(15)60091-5&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=25662414&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F02%2F11%2F2024.02.10.24302627.atom) 4. [4].Hedges JP, Mock CN, Cherian MN. The political economy of emergency and essential surgery in global health. World J Surg. 2010 Sep;34(9):2003–6. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1007/s00268-010-0610-5&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=20454792&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F02%2F11%2F2024.02.10.24302627.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000280701800003&link_type=ISI) 5. [5].Ng-Kamstra JS, Greenberg SLM, Abdullah F, Amado V, Anderson GA, Cossa M, et al. Global Surgery 2030: a roadmap for high income country actors. BMJ Glob Health. 2016 Apr 6;1(1):e000011. [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NToiYm1qZ2giO3M6NToicmVzaWQiO3M6MTE6IjEvMS9lMDAwMDExIjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6NTA6Ii9tZWRyeGl2L2Vhcmx5LzIwMjQvMDIvMTEvMjAyNC4wMi4xMC4yNDMwMjYyNy5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=) 6. [6].Niyikuri A, Smith ER, Vervoort D, Shrime MG, Brown S, Peters AW, et al. Top 10 Resources in Global Surgery. Glob Health Sci Pract. 2020 Sep 30;8(3):606–11. [FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiRlVMTCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NDoiZ2hzcCI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czo3OiI4LzMvNjA2IjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6NTA6Ii9tZWRyeGl2L2Vhcmx5LzIwMjQvMDIvMTEvMjAyNC4wMi4xMC4yNDMwMjYyNy5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=) 7. [7].Grimes CE, Henry JA, Maraka J, Mkandawire NC, Cotton M. Cost-effectiveness of surgery in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review. World J Surg. 2014 Jan;38(1):252–63. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1007/s00268-013-2243-y&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=24101020&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F02%2F11%2F2024.02.10.24302627.atom) 8. [8].Roa L, Jumbam DT, Makasa E, Meara JG. Global surgery and the sustainable development goals. Br J Surg. 2019 Jan;106(2):e44–52. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1002/bjs.11044&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=30620060&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F02%2F11%2F2024.02.10.24302627.atom) 9. [9].Meara JG, Leather AJM, Hagander L, Alkire BC, Alonso N, Ameh EA, et al. Global Surgery 2030: evidence and solutions for achieving health, welfare, and economic development. Lancet. 2015 Aug 8;386(9993):569–624. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/S0140-6736(15)60160-X&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=25924834&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F02%2F11%2F2024.02.10.24302627.atom) 10. [10].Mullapudi B, Grabski D, Ameh E, Ozgediz D, Thangarajah H, Kling K, et al. Estimates of number of children and adolescents without access to surgical care. Bull World Health Organ. 2019 Apr 1;97(4):254–8. [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F02%2F11%2F2024.02.10.24302627.atom) 11. [11].Tsang VWL, Luo LH, Kisa P, Blair GK. Ten Global Surgical Care Statements for Children: examining our commitment to the future. Pediatr Surg Int. 2021 Jul;37(7):957–64. 12. [12].Derbew M. Pediatric surgery in Eastern Africa: The unmet need. J Pediatr Surg. 2019 Jan;54(1):21–6. [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F02%2F11%2F2024.02.10.24302627.atom) 13. [13].Ozgediz D, Langer M, Kisa P, Poenaru D. Pediatric surgery as an essential component of global child health. Semin Pediatr Surg. 2016 Feb;25(1):3–9. doi: 10.1053/j.sempedsurg.2015.09.002. Epub 2015 Sep 15. PMID: 26831131. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1053/j.sempedsurg.2015.09.002&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=26831131&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F02%2F11%2F2024.02.10.24302627.atom) 14. [14].World Health Organization. Gender and Health. [Internet]. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO; 2022 [Cited 2022 Feb 20]. Available from: [https://www.who.int/health-topics/gender#tab=tab\_1](https://www.who.int/health-topics/gender#tab=tab_1). 15. [15].Magar V. Gender, health and the Sustainable Development Goals. Vol. 93, Bulletin of the World Health Organization. 2015. p. 743–743. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.2471/BLT.15.165027&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=26549898&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F02%2F11%2F2024.02.10.24302627.atom) 16. [16].Azad AD, Charles AG, Ding Q, Trickey AW, Wren SM. The gender gap and healthcare: associations between gender roles and factors affecting healthcare access in Central Malawi, June–August 2017. Arch Public Health. 2020 Nov 17;78(1):1–11. 17. [17].Reid TD, Wren SM, Grudziak J, Maine R, Kajombo C, Charles AG. Sex Disparities in Access to Surgical Care at a Single Institution in Malawi. World J Surg. 2019 Jan;43(1):60–6. 18. [18].Gillio AM, Li HW, Bhatia MB, Chepkemoi E, Rutto EJ, Carpenter KL, et al. Gender Differences in Insurance, Surgical Admissions and Outcomes at a Kenyan Referral Hospital. J Surg Res. 2021 Dec;268:199–208. 19. [19].Musonda W, Freitas D, Yamba K, Harrison WJ, Munthali J. Prognostic factors for surgical site infection following intramedullary nailing of diaphyseal fractures of the femur and tibia in adult patients at a tertiary hospital in Lusaka, Zambia. Trop Doct. 2022 Jan;52(1):15–22. 20. [20].Mulugeta GA, Awlachew S. Retrospective study on pattern and outcome of management of sigmoid volvulus at district hospital in Ethiopia. BMC Surg. 2019 Aug 9;19(1):107. 21. [21].Williams S, Gadagno E, Trudeau M, Poenaru D. The Impact of Gender on Pediatric Surgical Care in Africa. PROSPERO: International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews. 2023. CRD42023395021. Available from: [https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display\_record.php?ID=CRD42023395021](https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42023395021). 22. [22].Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021 Mar 29;372:n71. doi: 10.1136/bmj.n71. PMID: 33782057; PMCID: PMC8005924. [FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiRlVMTCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MzoiYm1qIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjE1OiIzNzIvbWFyMjlfMi9uNzEiO3M6NDoiYXRvbSI7czo1MDoiL21lZHJ4aXYvZWFybHkvMjAyNC8wMi8xMS8yMDI0LjAyLjEwLjI0MzAyNjI3LmF0b20iO31zOjg6ImZyYWdtZW50IjtzOjA6IiI7fQ==) 23. 23.R Core Team (2021). R: A Language and environment for statistical computing. (Version 4.1) [Computer software]. 2021. [Cited 2023 July 1]. Available from: [https://cran.r-project.org](https://cran.r-project.org). (R packages retrieved from MRAN snapshot 2022-01-01). 24. [24].Viechtbauer W. Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package. Journal of Statistical Software. 2010; 36: 1–48. doi: 10.18637/jss.v036.i03. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.18637/jss.v036.i03&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=21401589&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F02%2F11%2F2024.02.10.24302627.atom) 25. [25].Sterne JA, Hernan MA, Reeves BC, Savovic J, Berkman ND, Viswanathan M et al. ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. BMJ 2016; 355: i4919 doi:10.1136/bmj.i4919. [FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiRlVMTCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MzoiYm1qIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjE4OiIzNTUvb2N0MTJfMTEvaTQ5MTkiO3M6NDoiYXRvbSI7czo1MDoiL21lZHJ4aXYvZWFybHkvMjAyNC8wMi8xMS8yMDI0LjAyLjEwLjI0MzAyNjI3LmF0b20iO31zOjg6ImZyYWdtZW50IjtzOjA6IiI7fQ==) 26. [26].Sakita FM, Sawe HR, Mwafongo V, Mfinanga JA, Runyon MS, Murray BL. The Burden and Outcomes of Abdominal Pain among Children Presenting to an Emergency Department of a Tertiary Hospital in Tanzania: A Descriptive Cohort Study. Emerg Med Int. 2018 May 9;2018:3982648. doi: 10.1155/2018/3982648. PMID: 29862079; PMCID: PMC5971299. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1155/2018/3982648&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=29862079&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F02%2F11%2F2024.02.10.24302627.atom) 27. [27].United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs Sustainable Development. New York, United States: UN; 2024. [Cited 2023 Dec 15]. Available from: [https://sdgs.un.org/goals](https://sdgs.un.org/goals). 28. [28].UNICEF. Education. [Internet]. UNICEP; June 2022. [Cited 2023 Dec 15]. Available from: [https://data.unicef.org/topic/gender/gender-disparities-in-education/](https://data.unicef.org/topic/gender/gender-disparities-in-education/). 29. [29].Friedman J, York H, Graetz N, Woyczynski L, Whisnant J, Hay SI, et al. Measuring and forecasting progress towards the education-related SDG targets. Nature. 2020 Apr;580(7805):636–639. doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2198-8. Epub 2020 Apr 15. PMID: 32350468; PMCID: PMC7332421. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1038/s41586-020-2198-8&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=32350468&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F02%2F11%2F2024.02.10.24302627.atom) 30. [30].Oruko K, Nyothach E, Zielinski-Gutierrez E, Mason L, Alexander K, Vulule J, et al. ’He is the one who is providing you with everything so whatever he says is what you do’: A Qualitative Study on Factors Affecting Secondary Schoolgirls’ Dropout in Rural Western Kenya. PLoS One. 2015 Dec 4;10(12):e0144321. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0144321. PMID: 26636771; PMCID: PMC4670214. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1371/journal.pone.0144321&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F02%2F11%2F2024.02.10.24302627.atom) 31. [31].Ugalahi MO, Monye HI, Olusanya BA, Baiyeroju AM. Indications for surgery amongst new patients presenting to the paediatric ophthalmology unit of the University College Hospital, Ibadan. Afr J Paediatr Surg. 2021 Jan-Mar;18(1):1–4. doi: 10.4103/ajps.AJPS\_87\_20. PMID: 33595532; PMCID: PMC8109758. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access\_num=10.4103/ajps.AJPS_87_20&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=33595532&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F02%2F11%2F2024.02.10.24302627.atom) 32. [32].Adhisesha Reddy P, Kishiki EA, Thapa HB, Demers L, Geneau R, Bassett K. Interventions to improve utilization of cataract surgical services by girls: Case studies from Asia and Africa. Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 2018 Jun;25(3):199–206. doi: 10.1080/09286586.2017.1398340. Epub 2017 Nov 10. PMID: 29125374. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1080/09286586.2017.1398340&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=29125374&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F02%2F11%2F2024.02.10.24302627.atom) 33. [33].Courtright P, Williams T, Gilbert C, Kishiki E, Shirima S, Bowman R, et al. Measuring cataract surgical services in children: an example from Tanzania. Br J Ophthalmol. 2008 Aug;92(8):1031–4. doi: 10.1136/bjo.2007.136168. PMID: 18653593. [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MTI6ImJqb3BodGhhbG1vbCI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czo5OiI5Mi84LzEwMzEiO3M6NDoiYXRvbSI7czo1MDoiL21lZHJ4aXYvZWFybHkvMjAyNC8wMi8xMS8yMDI0LjAyLjEwLjI0MzAyNjI3LmF0b20iO31zOjg6ImZyYWdtZW50IjtzOjA6IiI7fQ==) 34. [34].Eriksen JR, Bronsard A, Mosha M, Carmichael D, Hall A, Courtright P. Predictors of poor follow-up in children that had cataract surgery. Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 2006 Aug;13(4):237–43. doi: 10.1080/09286580600672213. PMID: 16877282. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1080/09286580600672213&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=16877282&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F02%2F11%2F2024.02.10.24302627.atom) 35. [35].Petridou M, Karanikas M, Kaselas C. Laparoscopic vs. laparoscopically assisted pediatric inguinal hernia repair: a systematic review. Pediatr Surg Int. 2023 Jun 3;39(1):212. doi: 10.1007/s00383-023-05492-0. PMID: 37269352. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1007/s00383-023-05492-0&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=37269352&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F02%2F11%2F2024.02.10.24302627.atom) 36. [36].Wang K, Tan SS, Xiao Y, Wang Z, Peng C, Pang W, et al. Characteristics and treatments for pediatric ordinary and incarcerated inguinal hernia based on gender: 12-year experiences from a single center. BMC Surg. 2021 Feb 1;21(1):67. doi: 10.1186/s12893-020-01039-5. PMID: 33522917; PMCID: PMC7849117. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1186/s12893-020-01039-5&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=33522917&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F02%2F11%2F2024.02.10.24302627.atom) 37. [37].Igwe AO, Talabi AO, Adisa AO, Adumah CC, Ogundele IO, Sowande OA, et al. Comparative Study of Laparoscopic and Open Inguinal Herniotomy in Children in Ile Ife, Nigeria: A Prospective Randomized Trial. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2019 Dec;29(12):1609–1615. doi: 10.1089/lap.2019.0354. Epub 2019 Oct 24. PMID: 31647350. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1089/lap.2019.0354&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=31647350&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F02%2F11%2F2024.02.10.24302627.atom) 38. [38].Aluisio AR, Umuhire OF, Mbanjumucyo G, George N, Kearney A, Karim N, et al. Epidemiologic Characteristics of Pediatric Trauma Patients Receiving Prehospital Care in Kigali, Rwanda. Pediatr Emerg Care. 2019 Sep;35(9):630–636. doi: 10.1097/PEC.0000000000001045. PMID: 28169980. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1097/PEC.0000000000001045&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=28169980&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F02%2F11%2F2024.02.10.24302627.atom) 39. [39].Halawa EF, Barakat A, Rizk HI, Moawad EM. Epidemiology of non-fatal injuries among Egyptian children: a community-based cross-sectional survey. BMC Public Health. 2015 Dec 17;15:1248. doi: 10.1186/s12889-015-2613-5. PMID: 26680214; PMCID: PMC4683736. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1186/s12889-015-2613-5&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F02%2F11%2F2024.02.10.24302627.atom) 40. [40].Dettori JR, Norvell DC, Chapman JR. Fixed-Effect vs Random-Effects Models for Meta-Analysis: 3 Points to Consider. Global Spine J. 2022 Sep;12(7):1624–1626. doi: 10.1177/21925682221110527. Epub 2022 Jun 20. PMID: 35723546; PMCID: PMC9393987. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1177/21925682221110527&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=35723546&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F02%2F11%2F2024.02.10.24302627.atom) 41. [41].Barili F, Parolari A, Kappetein PA, Freemantle N. Statistical Primer: heterogeneity, random- or fixed-effects model analyses? Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2018 Sep 1;27(3):317–321. doi: 10.1093/icvts/ivy163. PMID: 29868857. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/icvts/ivy163&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=29868857&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F02%2F11%2F2024.02.10.24302627.atom) 42. [42].Cochrane. RoB2: A revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials. [Internet]. London, United Kingdom: The Cochrane Collaboration; 2023 [Cited 2023 Dec 15]. Available from: [https://methods.cochrane.org/bias/resources/rob-2-revised-cochrane-risk-bias-tool-randomized-trials](https://methods.cochrane.org/bias/resources/rob-2-revised-cochrane-risk-bias-tool-randomized-trials). 43. [43].Rabbitts JA, Groenewald CB. Epidemiology of Pediatric Surgery in the United States. Paediatr Anaesth. 2020 Oct;30(10):1083–1090. doi: 10.1111/pan.13993. Epub 2020 Aug 29. PMID: 32777147; PMCID: PMC7891905. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1111/pan.13993&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=32777147&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F02%2F11%2F2024.02.10.24302627.atom) 44. [44].Dickens H, Rao U, Sarver D, Bruehl S, Kinney K, Karlson C, et al. Racial, Gender, and Neighborhood-Level Disparities in Pediatric Trauma Care. J Racial Ethn Health Disparities. 2023 Jun;10(3):1006–1017. doi: 10.1007/s40615-022-01288-5. Epub 2022 Mar 56. PMID: 35347650; PMCID: PMC9515239. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1007/s40615-022-01288-5&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=35347650&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F02%2F11%2F2024.02.10.24302627.atom) 45. [45].Hogan J, Couchoud C, Bonthuis M, Groothoff JW, Jager KJ, Schaefer F, et al. Gender Disparities in Access to Pediatric Renal Transplantation in Europe: Data From the ESPN/ERA-EDTA Registry. Am J Transplant. 2016 Jul;16(7):2097–105. doi: 10.1111/ajt.13723. Epub 2016 Apr 5. PMID: 26783738. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1111/ajt.13723&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=26783738&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F02%2F11%2F2024.02.10.24302627.atom)