ArticleJAMA surgery2016
Determining If Sex Bias Exists in Human Surgical Clinical Research.
Article in JAMA surgery, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 43 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
43 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Meta-analysis on sex differences in mortality and neurodevelopment in congenital heart defects.Scientific reports · 2025Pooled it
- Women Have Tendons… and Tendinopathy: Gender Bias is a "Gender Void" in Sports Medicine with a Lack of Women Data on Patellar Tendinopathy-A Systematic Review.Sports medicine - open · 2022Pooled it
- Global Gender Differences in Pilonidal Sinus Disease: A Random-Effects Meta-Analysis.World journal of surgery · 2020Pooled it
- A randomized clinical trial of a new perioperative practice model on anxiety and health-related quality of life in arthroplasty patients.Nursing open · 2021Trial
- What we could not have known: ovarian cycles, follicle development, and the signature of life.Molecular human reproduction · 2026Review
- Is Mechanism a Biological Variable?: A Secondary Analysis of the PROPPR Trial.Annals of surgery open : perspectives of surgical history, education, and clinical approaches · 2025Article
- A Cross-Sectional Study of Sex, Race, and Ethnic Representation in Burn Registered Clinical Trials.Journal of racial and ethnic health disparities · 2025Article
- Reporting and analysis of sex in vascular surgery research.Journal of vascular surgery · 2024Review
- Sex Difference in the Treatment of Dupuytren's Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Clinical Trials.Plastic surgery (Oakville, Ont.) · 2024Article
- Differences in the Incidence of Hypotension and Hypertension between Sexes during Non-Cardiac Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Balancing evidence-based care with patient-centered individualized care.Journal of vascular surgery. Venous and lymphatic disorders · 2023Article
- Analysis of Female Participant Representation in Registered Oncology Clinical Trials in the United States from 2008 to 2020.The oncologist · 2023Article
- Higher performance for women than men in MRI-based Alzheimer's disease detection.Alzheimer's research & therapy · 2023Article
- Sex disparities in the treatment and outcomes of ventral and incisional hernia repair.Surgical endoscopy · 2023Article
- Minimal influence of estrous cycle on studies of female mouse behaviors.Frontiers in molecular neuroscience · 2023Article
- Creation of standardized tools to evaluate reporting in health research: Population Reporting Of Gender, Race, Ethnicity & Sex (PROGRES).PLOS global public health · 2023Article
- Sexing Bones: Improving Transparency of Sex Reporting to Address Bias Within Preclinical Studies.Journal of bone and mineral research : the official journal of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research · 2023Article
- Lack of sex-related analysis and reporting in Cochrane Reviews: a cross-sectional study.Systematic reviews · 2022Article
- Lack of attention to sex and gender in periodontitis-related randomized clinical trials: A meta-research study.Journal of clinical periodontology · 2022Article
- The Persistence of Sex Bias in High-Impact Clinical Research.The Journal of surgical research · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Importance: Sex is a variable that is poorly controlled for in clinical research. Objectives: To determine if sex bias exists in human surgical clinical research, to determine if data are reported and analyzed using sex as an independent variable, and to identify specialties in which the greatest and least sex biases exist. Design, Setting, and Participants: For this bibliometric analysis, data were abstracted from 1303 original peer-reviewed articles published from January 1, 2011, through December 31, 2012, in 5 surgery journals. Main Outcomes and Measures: Study type, location, number and sex of participants, degree of sex matching of included participants, and inclusion of sex-based reporting, statistical analysis, and discussion of data. Results: Of 2347 articles reviewed, 1668 (71.1%) included human participants. After excluding 365 articles, 1303 remained: 17 (1.3%) included males only, 41 (3.1%) included females only, 1020 (78.3%) included males and females, and 225 (17.3%) did not document the sex of the participants. Although female participants represent more than 50% (n = 57 688 606) of the total number (115 377 213) included, considerable variability existed with the number of male (46 111 818), female (58 805 665), and unspecified (10 459 730) participants included among the journals, between US domestic and international studies, and between single vs multicenter studies. For articles included in the study, 38.1% (497 of 1303) reported these data by sex, 33.2% (432 of 1303) analyzed these data by sex, and 22.9% (299 of 1303) included a discussion of sex-based results. Sex matching of the included participants in the research overall was poor, with 45.2% (589 of 1303) of the studies matching the inclusion of both sexes by 50%. During analysis of the different surgical specialties, a wide variation in sex-based inclusion, matching, and data reporting existed, with colorectal surgery having the best matching of male and female participants and cardiac surgery having the worst. Conclusions and Relevance: Sex bias exists in human surgical clinical research. Few studies included men and women equally, less than one-third performed data analysis by sex, and there was wide variation in inclusion and matching of the sexes among the specialties and the journals reviewed. Because clinical research is the foundation for evidence-based medicine, it is imperative that this disparity be addressed so that therapies benefit 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.