SynthesisPloS one2021
Gender bias in clinical trials of biological agents for severe asthma: A systematic review.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 3 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Gender Bias in Clinical Trials of Sodium-Glucose Cotransporter 2 Inhibitors for the Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Systematic Review.Journal of diabetes research · 2025Pooled it
- Gender bias in clinical trials of biological agents for migraine: A systematic review.PloS one · 2023Pooled it
- Sex differences in adult asthma and COPD therapy: a systematic review.Respiratory research · 2022Pooled it
- Severe Asthma in Women: Clinical Characteristics and Pharmacological Implications for Tailored Management.Respiration; international review of thoracic diseases · 2026Article
- Sex, hormones, and lung health.Physiological reviews · 2026Review
- Asthma biologic effectiveness by age and sex in the US CHRONICLE study.The journal of allergy and clinical immunology. Global · 2026Article
- Factors influencing poor response to type 2 targeted therapies in severe asthma: a retrospective cohort study.BMC pulmonary medicine · 2023Article
- Big data- and machine learning-based analysis of a global pharmacovigilance database enables the discovery of sex-specific differences in the safety profile of dual IL4/IL13 blockade.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2023Article
- Biologic therapies for asthma in underserved populations.Lancet (London, England) · 2022Article
- Sex, Allergic Diseases and Omalizumab.Biomedicines · 2022Review
- Sex Disparities in Asthma Development and Clinical Outcomes: Implications for Treatment Strategies.Journal of asthma and allergy · 2022Review
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Asthma is one of the most common chronic diseases characterized by sex disparities. Gender bias is a well-documented issue detected in the design of published clinical trials (CTs). International guidelines encourage researchers to analyze clinical data by sex, gender, or both where appropriate. The objective of this work was to evaluate gender bias in the published CTs of biological agents for the treatment of severe asthma. A systematic review of randomized controlled CTs of the biological agents (omalizumab, benralizumab, reslizumab, mepolizumab or dupilumab) for the treatment of severe asthma was conducted. The literature search was performed using PubMed and EMBASE without language restrictions. This study followed the corresponding international recommendations. We identified a total of 426 articles, of which 37 were finally included. Women represented 60.4% of patients included. The mean percentage of women in these trials was 59.9%, ranged from 40.8% to 76.7%. The separate analysis by sex of the main variable was only performed in 5 of the 37 publications included, and none of the trials analyzed secondary variables by sex. Only 1 of the articles discussed the results separately by sex. No study included the concept of gender in the text or analyzed the results separately by gender. The proportion of women included in CTs was higher compared to publications of other disciplines, where women were under-represented. The analysis of the main and secondary variables by sex or gender, even the discussion separately by sex, was insufficient. This gives rise to potential gender bias in these CTs.
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.