ArticleArthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation2020
Sex-Specific Analysis at Two Time Points in Three High-Impact Orthopaedic Sports Medicine Journals.
Article in Arthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Silenced by design: epistemic injustice and older women's experiences in total hip replacement.International journal for equity in health · 2026Article
- Epidemiologic characteristics of 22,086 patients discharged from the Department of Orthopaedic Trauma at a military hospital between 2013 and 2022: a retrospective real-world study.Annals of medicine · 2025Article
- Sex-Specific Analysis Is Lacking in Abstracts Presented at Arthroscopy Association of North America and American Orthopaedic Society for Sports Medicine Annual Meetings From 2016 to 2019.Arthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo determine how well the orthopaedic sports medicine literature reported sex-specific analysis (SSA) in 2011 and 2016.
methodsThe 3 highest-impact orthopaedic sports medicine subspecialty journals (
resultsA total of 960 studies evaluating 3,400,569 patients met criteria and were included in this review. Although 44.4% of the overall study population was female, only 293 (30.5%) studies included patient sex as variable in a multifactorial statistical model. The proportion of studies that performed SSA did not differ between 2011 (29.6%) and 2016 (31.1%;
conclusionsAlthough most sports medicine studies include approximately 50% female and 50% male patients, statistical analysis differentiating the 2 subsets is not routinely performed. Only 30.5% of all studies performed SSA, 31% of which reported a statistically significant difference in the data when comparing outcomes between male and female patients with the same treatment modalities. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The current study demonstrates that the orthopaedic sports medicine subspecialty literature is lacking in reporting SSA, and that there has been minimal improvement over a 5-year time period. In addition, this study highlights the high percentage of significant findings within the studies that performed SSA and underscores the differences in sex-specific injury patterns and treatment outcomes.
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.