ArticleResearch integrity and peer review2018
Beyond sex and gender difference in funding and reporting of health research.
Article in Research integrity and peer review, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers, 6 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
35 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Exploring the cultural effects of gender on perceptions of cutaneous leishmaniasis: a systematic literature review.Global health research and policy · 2022Pooled it
- Integrating sex and gender in studies of cardiac resynchronization therapy: a systematic review.ESC heart failure · 2022Pooled it
- Sex and gender considerations in reporting guidelines for health research: a systematic review.Biology of sex differences · 2021Pooled it
- Translational Intracerebral Hemorrhage Research: Has Current Neuroprotection Research ARRIVEd at a Standard for Experimental Design and Reporting?Translational stroke research · 2020Pooled it
- Representation of gender in migrant health studies - a systematic review of the social epidemiological literature.International journal for equity in health · 2020Pooled it
- A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Animal Studies Testing Intra-Arterial Chilled Infusates After Ischemic Stroke.Frontiers in neurology · 2020Pooled it
- The male default prevails in biomedical research: sex inclusion in Nature (2025).Biology of sex differences · 2026Article
- The Effects of Land Management Policies on the Environment and People in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Systematic Review.Campbell systematic reviews · 2026Review
- Artificial intelligence in cancer diagnosis and therapy using sex and gender as precision biomarkers.Discover oncology · 2026Review
- Three maxims for countering sex essentialism in scientific research.Biology of sex differences · 2025Review
- What Guidance Do Violence Journals Provide for Reporting on Sexual and Gender Diversity? A Document Analysis.Journal of advanced nursing · 2025Article
- Unmasking Racial, Ethnic, and Socioeconomic Disparities in United States Chordoma Clinical Trials: Systematic Review.Cancers · 2025Review
- Article
- An expert perspective on diversity-oriented standards for assessing sex and gender in clinical research.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2024Article
- A roadmap for sex- and gender-disaggregated health research.BMC medicine · 2023Article
- Trend of Women's Health Research in Korea, 2012-2020: Topic and Text Network Analysis.Journal of Korean medical science · 2023Review
- Sex and gender in infection and immunity: addressing the bottlenecks from basic science to public health and clinical applications.Royal Society open science · 2023Article
- How to carry out participatory research that takes account of sex and gender issues: a scoping review of guidelines targeting health inequities.Canadian journal of public health = Revue canadienne de sante publique · 2023Article
- Gender and sex in eating disorders: A narrative review of the current state of knowledge, research gaps, and recommendations.Brain and behavior · 2023Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundUnderstanding sex and gender in health research can improve the quality of scholarship and enhance health outcomes. Funding agencies and academic journals are two key gatekeepers of knowledge production and dissemination, including whether and how sex/gender is incorporated into health research. Though attention has been paid to key issues and practices in accounting for sex/gender in health funding agencies and academic journals, to date, there has been no systematic analysis documenting whether and how agencies and journals require attention to sex/gender, what conceptual explanations and practical guidance are given for such inclusion, and whether existing practices reflect the reality that sex/gender cannot be separated from other axes of inequality.
methodsOur research systematically examines official statements about sex/gender inclusion from 45 national-level funding agencies that fund health research across 36 countries (covering the regions of the EU and associated countries, North America, and Australia) and from ten top-ranking general health (the top five in "science" and the top five in "social science") and ten sex- and/or gender-related health journals. We explore the extent to which agencies and journals require inclusion of sex/gender considerations and to what extent existing strategies reflect state of the art understandings of sex/gender, including intersectional perspectives.
resultsThe research highlights the following: (a) there is no consistency in whether sex/gender are mentioned in funding and publishing guidelines; (b) there is wide variation in how sex/gender are conceptualized and how researchers are asked to address the inclusion/exclusion of sex/gender in research; (c) funding agencies tend to prioritize male/female equality in research teams and funding outcomes over considerations of sex/gender in research content and knowledge production; and (d) with very few exceptions, agency and journal criteria fail to recognize the complexity of sex/gender, including the intersection of sex/gender with other key factors that shape health.
conclusionsThe conceptualization and integration of sex/gender needs to better capture the interacting and complex factors that shape health-an imperative that can be informed by an intersectional approach. This can strengthen current efforts to advance scientific excellence in the production and reporting of research. We provide recommendations and supporting questions to strengthen consideration of sex/gender in policies and practices of health journals and funding agencies.
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.