ArticleSurgery2021
Sex bias persists in surgical research: A 5-year follow-up study.
Article in Surgery, 2021. 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.
- Natural history of groin hernias in women and factors leading to delay in repair: a single-institution study.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Article
- Minimal influence of estrous cycle on studies of female mouse behaviors.Frontiers in molecular neuroscience · 2023Article
- The Persistence of Sex Bias in High-Impact Clinical Research.The Journal of surgical research · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundFederal initiatives have recently addressed the sex bias that exists in biomedical and clinical research. However, improvement to the inclusion of sex as a biological variable remains unknown.
methodsWe performed a 5-year follow-up study of all clinical and biomedical research articles published in 5 surgical journals from January 1, 2017, through December 31, 2018. Human, animal, and cell subjects were analyzed for study/subject type, sex of participants, sex matching, and sex-based data reporting, analysis, and discussion.
resultsComparing 2017 to 2018 with 2011 to 2012, slightly more articles reported the sex of the human studied (87% vs 83%; P = .001). Inclusion of both sexes remained high (94% vs 95%; P = .22), but sex-based data reporting (36% vs 38%; P = .17), analysis (35% vs 33%; P = .39), and discussion of results (10% vs 23%; P < .0001) remained unchanged or worsened. Regarding animal research, the number of articles that stated the sex studied remained unchanged (79% vs 78%; P = .67); if stated, slightly more included both sexes (7% vs 3%; P = .002). Regarding cell research, fewer articles reported the sex of the cells studied (5% vs 24%; P = .0001); if stated, more articles included both sexes, but the difference did not reach statistical significance (25% vs 7%; P = .34). Sex matching remained poor with only 50% of human, 4% of animal, and 9% of cell studies matching the inclusion of both sexes by at least 50%.
conclusionSex bias persists in surgical research. The majority of articles failed to report, analyze, or discuss results based on sex, which will negatively affect clinical translatability and outcomes of evidence-based medicine.
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.