ArticleInternational forum of allergy & rhinology2018
Sex bias in rhinology research.
Article in International forum of allergy & rhinology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Minimal influence of estrous cycle on studies of female mouse behaviors.Frontiers in molecular neuroscience · 2023Article
- Sex-based Differences in Hearing Loss: Perspectives From Non-clinical Research to Clinical Outcomess.Otology & neurotology : official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAnalysis of general surgery literature has revealed noteworthy sex bias and underreporting. Our objective was to determine the prevalence of sex bias and underreporting in rhinology.
methodsAll articles in 2016 issues of Rhinology, the American Journal of Rhinology and Allergy (AJRA), and the International Forum of Allergy and Rhinology (IFAR) were reviewed. Of 369 articles, 248 met inclusion criteria. Excluded studies were cadaveric, meta-analysis/review, and editorial. Data collected included study type, demographics, and sex-based statistical analysis.
resultsThere were 202 clinical and 46 basic science/translational studies. From 188 of 202 clinical studies with known sex, 1 included participants of a single sex. Sex matching >50% (SM
conclusionAlthough sex may impact outcomes, research without sex reporting and analysis is prevalent, particularly among basic science/translational studies. Future research must account for sex in demographics and analysis to best inform evidence-based clinical guidelines.
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.