Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34732844›Full record

ArticleNeuropsychopharmacology : official publication of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology2022

Evaluating the evidence for sex differences: a scoping review of human neuroimaging in psychopharmacology research.

Korrina A Duffy, C Neill Epperson

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Neuropsychopharmacology : official publication of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Females have shorter scalp-to-cortex distances and receive stronger TMS electrical fields: Implications for clinical treatment.Neuropsychopharmacology : official publication of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology · 2026
    Article
  5. Beyond Binary Policy: Precision Medicine Requires Sex-Inclusive Research.BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Korrina A DuffyDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0377-0134
C Neill EppersonDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO, USA. neill.epperson@cuanschutz.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1010-1409

Funding

Targeted Development of Platinum DrugsR01CA160687 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF TX MD ANDERSON CAN CTR · PI SIDDIK, ZAHID H · 2011 to 2015
$1.6M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA160687
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Although sex differences in psychiatric disorders abound, few neuropsychopharmacology (NPP) studies consider sex as a biological variable (SABV). We conducted a scoping review of this literature in humans by systematically searching PubMed to identify peer-reviewed journal articles published before March 2020 that (1) studied FDA-approved medications used to treat psychiatric disorders (or related symptoms) and (2) adequately evaluated sex differences using in vivo neuroimaging methodologies. Of the 251 NPP studies that included both sexes and considered SABV in analyses, 80% used methodologies that eliminated the effect of sex (e.g., by including sex as a covariate to control for its effect). Only 20% (50 studies) adequately evaluated sex differences either by testing for an interaction involving sex or by stratifying analyses by sex. Of these 50 studies, 72% found statistically significant sex differences in at least one outcome. Sex differences in neural and behavioral outcomes were studied more often in drugs indicated for conditions with known sex differences. Likewise, the majority of studies conducted in those drug classes noted sex differences: antidepressants (13 of 16), antipsychotics (10 of 12), sedative-hypnotics (6 of 10), and stimulants (6 of 10). In contrast, only two studies of mood stabilizers evaluated SABV, with one noting a sex difference. By mapping this literature, we bring into sharp relief how few studies adequately evaluate sex differences in NPP studies. Currently, all NIH-funded studies are required to consider SABV. We urge scientific journals, peer reviewers, and regulatory agencies to require researchers to consider SABV in their research. Continuing to ignore SABV in NPP research has ramifications both in terms of rigor and reproducibility of research, potentially leading to costly consequences and unrealized benefits.

Indexed as

Biomedical ResearchPsychopharmacologyFemaleHumansMaleNeuroimagingReproducibility of ResultsSex CharacteristicsSex Factors

Identifiers

PMID34732844
PMCPMC8674314

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.