ReviewGlobal health action2014
Gender bias in clinical research, pharmaceutical marketing, and the prescription of drugs.
Review in Global health action, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Medication use patterns and polypharmacy among elderly in Iran: a cross-sectional study using national health insurance claims data.BMJ open · 2025Observational
- Clinical, Economical, and Organizational Impact of Chronic Ischemic Cardiovascular Disease in Italy: Evaluation of 2019 Nationwide Hospital Admissions Data.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025Article
- Sex differences in airway disease: estrogen and airway surface liquid dynamics.Biology of sex differences · 2024Review
- Understanding the Impact of Chronic Non-Cancer Pain on Daily Life from a Gender Perspective Using the PAIN_Integral Scale©.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Drug repurposing: A novel strategy to target cancer stem cells and therapeutic resistance.Genes & diseases · 2024Review
- Workforce Attrition Among Male and Female Physicians Working in US Academic Hospitals, 2014-2019.JAMA network open · 2023Article
- Sex and Gender Bias in Kidney Transplantation: 3D Bioprinting as a Challenge to Personalized Medicine.Women's health reports (New Rochelle, N.Y.) · 2020Review
- Symptomatic Tarlov cysts are often overlooked: ten reasons why-a narrative review.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2019Review
- Is It Important to Consider Sex and Gender in Neurocognitive Studies?Frontiers in psychiatry · 2015Review
- Gender regimes in health systems.Global health action · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This thesis is part of the studies of gender bias in health which together with the paradigm of evidence-based medicine shares the empirical assumption that there are inaccuracies in medical practice, in addition to a lack of rigour and transparency. It worked with the distinction between the concepts of sex and gender and between the concepts of sex-related differences and gender inequalities, in terms of applying a gender perspective in the study design and the subsequent analysis. This PhD review presents the research process conducted in Spain, which can provide an example for future research. Study I described a review of 58 clinical trials (CTs) of etoricoxib to assess its compliance with the Recommendations of Evaluation of Gender Differences in the Clinical Evaluation of Drugs. In Study II, key informants from professions related to different areas in drug development and pharmacovigilance held a working meeting to reach a consensus document on recommendations for the study and evaluation of gender differences in CTs in Spain. In Study III, the websites of the eight best-selling hormone replacement therapy drugs in Spain on Google first page of results were analysed. In Study IV, a logistic regression analysis was performed to compare analgesic prescription by sex in regions with a higher or lower Gender Development Index (GDI) than the Spanish average. Gender biases identified in this thesis limited the legitimacy of medicine, which is not based on the best possible evidence. The results also demonstrate the existence of inequalities between men and women that are not due merely to biological differences, but are gender inequalities stemming from the social differences that exist between both sexes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.