ArticleThe Journal of surgical research2022
The Persistence of Sex Bias in High-Impact Clinical Research.
Article in The Journal of surgical research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Toward the Clinical Translation of Implantable Brain-Computer Interfaces for Motor Impairment: Research Trends and Outcome Measures.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2025Pooled it
- A protection motivation theory-guided telehealth coaching program for middle-aged adults with cardiometabolic risk: A feasibility trial.BMC public health · 2025Trial
- A Guide for the Inclusion of Sex and Gender Considerations in Clinical Practice Guidelines.Clinical and public health guidelines · 2026Article
- Vitamin D Receptor Polymorphisms and Their Association with Nrf2-Dependent Gene Expression in Oxidative Stress Resilience in Cognitively Healthy Aging.Antioxidants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Investigating Disordered Eating Behaviours Among Individuals Living With Neurodegenerative Disease: A Scoping Review.Journal of human nutrition and dietetics : the official journal of the British Dietetic Association · 2026Article
- Sex Differences in Metabolite-Immune Circuits of Neuroinflammation.Immunological reviews · 2026Review
- Evaluating sex as a biological variable in in vitro blood-brain barrier models: insights from primary mouse brain endothelial cells.Fluids and barriers of the CNS · 2026Article
- Sex-based differences in survival after liver transplantation for colorectal cancer liver metastases: A multivariable analysis.JHEP reports : innovation in hepatology · 2025Article
- Female first and senior authorship in high-impact critical care journals 2005-2024.Critical care (London, England) · 2025Article
- Evaluating Covid-19 publications for sex and gender-specific health content: A bibliometric analysis.PloS one · 2025Article
- Potential Differences in Psychedelic Actions Based on Biological Sex.Endocrinology · 2024Review
- High ADMA Is Associated with Worse Health Profile in Heart Failure Patients Hospitalized for Episodes of Acute Decompensation.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2024Article
- Sex bias in prospective follow-up observational studies with drugs carried out in a southern region of Europe.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2024Article
- The Impact of Sex and Gender in Medicine and Pharmacology.Handbook of experimental pharmacology · 2023Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionSex bias is present in clinical research resulting in disparities in the treatment of women. Our objective was to identify the prevalence of sex inclusiveness of participants in human clinical trials after the passage of National Institutes of Health (NIH) and United States Congress policies in 2015 and 2016 to increase female enrollment in clinical research.
methodsWe performed an observational analysis of data from registered clinical trials published in three high-impact biomedical journals from January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2019.
resultsOne thousand four hundred and forty two manuscripts with 4,765,783 human subjects were included for analysis. Significantly more males (56%) than females (44%) were included in all three journals (P < 0.0001). Sex matching ≥ 80% was found in 24.6% of publications. Industry funded 43.7% of all studies enrolling significantly more males than females (60.8% versus 39.2%, P < 0.0001). NIH funded 10.2% of studies enrolling significantly more females than males (52.7% versus 47.3%, P < 0.0001). North America and Europe contributed 82.6% of the studies with each enrolling significantly more males than females (P < 0.0001). The United States was the country contributing the most studies (36.1%), enrolling significantly more males than females (55.5% versus 45.5%, P < 0.0001). Cardiovascular disease was the subject area of the most manuscripts among medical specialties (19%), enrolling significantly more males than females (64.9% versus 35.1%, P < 0.0001). Studies analyzed by clinical trial phase, type, trial, and allocation enrolled significantly more males than females (P < 0.0001).
conclusionsSex bias remains prevalent in human clinical research trials. Improvements have been made in NIH-funded clinical trials; however, this constitutes a small percentage of overall studies.
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.