SynthesisPloS one2023
Gender bias in clinical trials of biological agents for migraine: A systematic review.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 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
- Trial
- [Migraine in men: biological, psychosocial and clinical characteristics].Schmerz (Berlin, Germany) · 2026Review
- Sex representation in trials relative to indication-specific disease burden in FDA-approved drugs (2015-2023).Nature communications · 2026Article
- Sex differences in the effects of calcitonin gene-related peptide signaling on migraine-like behavior in animal models: a narrative review.Frontiers in neurology · 2025Review
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
Migraine is considered one of the most disabling diseases. Currently, there are few studies on clinical migraine treatment based on sex-related differences, despite the important role of sex in migraine. Our aim was to evaluate gender bias in published clinical trials on monoclonal antibodies (erenumab, galcanezumab, fremanezumab and eptinezumab). We performed a systematic review of controlled clinical trials of erenumab, galcanezumab, fremanezumab and eptinezumab, searching the PubMed/MEDLINE database for articles published before December 2021. The search identified 760 articles, 25 of which met the inclusion criteria. Of all the patients included in these trials, 85.1% were women. Only one study had female lead authors. Two of the 25 studies included a sex-based analysis of the primary endpoint. None of the articles discussed the results separately for men and for women. The proportion of men recruited in trials is scarce and more studies are needed to guarantee the safety and tolerability of monoclonal antibodies used in male migraine. As observed in our study, despite the high number of women recruited, only 2 studies analysed the results separately by sex. Thus, a potential risk of gender bias was found in these clinical trials.
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.