Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27551816›Full record

ArticleJAMA surgery2016

Determining If Sex Bias Exists in Human Surgical Clinical Research.

Neel A Mansukhani, Dustin Y Yoon, Katherine A Teter, Vanessa C Stubbs, Irene B Helenowski, Teresa K Woodruff, Melina R Kibbe

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
43citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

43 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Review
  6. Is Mechanism a Biological Variable?: A Secondary Analysis of the PROPPR Trial.Annals of surgery open : perspectives of surgical history, education, and clinical approaches · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Balancing evidence-based care with patient-centered individualized care.Journal of vascular surgery. Venous and lymphatic disorders · 2023
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. 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 · 2023
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Neel A MansukhaniDepartment of Surgery, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois.
Dustin Y YoonDepartment of Surgery, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois.
Katherine A TeterDepartment of Surgery, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois.
Vanessa C StubbsDepartment of Surgery, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois.
Irene B HelenowskiDepartment of Surgery, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois.
Teresa K WoodruffDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois3Women's Health Research Institute, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois.
Melina R KibbeDepartment of Surgery, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois3Women's Health Research Institute, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois4Editor, JAMA Surgery5now with Department of Surgery, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Funding

Vascular Surgery Scientist Training ProgramT32HL094293 · NHLBI · NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY AT CHICAGO · PI ESKANDARI, MARK K · 2009 to 2023
$4.0M
NHLBI NIH HHS T32 HL094293
6 · The paper itself

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

BiasBiomedical ResearchFemaleHumansInternationalityMalePeriodicals as TopicResearch DesignSex DistributionSex FactorsSpecialties, SurgicalSurgical Procedures, OperativeUnited States

Identifiers

PMID27551816
PMCPMC5142632

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.