Observational studyBMJ open2020
Women's health in
Observational study in BMJ open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Exploring factors affecting knowledge creation in under-researched healthcare topics: a case study of women's health research.Health research policy and systems · 2025Article
- A qualitative insight into researchers' perceptions of gender inequality in medical and dental research institutions in Nigeria.PloS one · 2023Article
- Lessons Learned in Clinical Research Recruitment of Midlife Latinas During COVID-19.Menopause (New York, N.Y.) · 2022Article
- Sex Differences in Cardiovascular Consequences of Hypertension, Obesity, and Diabetes: JACC Focus Seminar 4/7.Journal of the American College of Cardiology · 2022Review
- Barriers of West African women scientists in their research and academic careers: A qualitative research.PloS one · 2022Observational
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo determine how the representation of women's health has changed in clinical studies over the course of 70 years.
designObservational study of 71 866 research articles published between 1948 and 2018 in
main outcome measuresThe incidence of women-specific health topics over time. General linear, additive and segmented regression models were used to estimate trends.
resultsOver 70 years, the overall odds that a word in a
conclusionsOver time women have become ever more prominent in
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.