Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39102546›Full record

ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2024

Sex bias in pain management decisions.

Mika Guzikevits, Tom Gordon-Hecker, David Rekhtman, Shaden Salameh, Salomon Israel, Moses Shayo, David Gozal, Anat Perry, Alex Gileles-Hillel, Shoham Choshen-Hillel

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. The national acceptance of pelvic congestion syndrome among other common venous pathologies.Journal of vascular surgery. Venous and lymphatic disorders · 2026
    Article
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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

10 authors.

Mika Guzikevits *Hebrew University Business School, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem 9190501, Israel.ORCID 0000-0001-7953-6534
Tom Gordon-Hecker *Department of Business Administration, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Be'er-Sheva 8410501, Israel.ORCID 0000-0003-2452-2260
David RekhtmanThe Department of Emergency Medicine, Hadassah Medical Center, Jerusalem 9112001, Israel.ORCID 0000-0003-2746-8239
Shaden SalamehThe Department of Emergency Medicine, Hadassah Medical Center, Jerusalem 9112001, Israel.
Salomon IsraelPsychology department, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem 9190501, Israel.ORCID 0000-0003-3629-2466
Moses ShayoFedermann Center for the Study of Rationality, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem 9190401, Israel.ORCID 0000-0002-7041-6058
David GozalThe University of Missouri School of Medicine, Columbia, MO 65201.
Anat PerryPsychology department, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem 9190501, Israel.ORCID 0000-0003-2329-856X
Alex Gileles-Hillel *Pediatric Pulmonology Unit, Department of Pediatrics, Hadassah Medical Center, Jerusalem 9112001, Israel.ORCID 0000-0002-0656-905X
Shoham Choshen-Hillel *Hebrew University Business School, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem 9190501, Israel.ORCID 0000-0002-3219-2751

Funding

APP-mediated signaling, sleep perturbations, and Alzheimer's disease mouse modelsRF1AG061824 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA · PI GOZAL, DAVID, PARENT, ANGELE · 2019 to 2019
$3.5M
HHS | NIH | National Institute on Aging (NIA) AG061824Israel Science Foundation (ISF) 2824/22Israel Science Foundation (ISF) 354/21NIA NIH HHS RF1 AG061824
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In the pursuit of mental and physical health, effective pain management stands as a cornerstone. Here, we examine a potential sex bias in pain management. Leveraging insights from psychological research showing that females' pain is stereotypically judged as less intense than males' pain, we hypothesize that there may be tangible differences in pain management decisions based on patients' sex. Our investigation spans emergency department (ED) datasets from two countries, including discharge notes of patients arriving with pain complaints (N = 21,851). Across these datasets, a consistent sex disparity emerges. Female patients are less likely to be prescribed pain-relief medications compared to males, and this disparity persists even after adjusting for patients' reported pain scores and numerous patient, physician, and ED variables. This disparity extends across medical practitioners, with both male and female physicians prescribing less pain-relief medications to females than to males. Additional analyses reveal that female patients' pain scores are 10% less likely to be recorded by nurses, and female patients spend an additional 30 min in the ED compared to male patients. A controlled experiment employing clinical vignettes reinforces our hypothesis, showing that nurses (N = 109) judge pain of female patients to be less intense than that of males. We argue that the findings reflect an undertreatment of female patients' pain. We discuss the troubling societal and medical implications of females' pain being overlooked and call for policy interventions to ensure equal pain treatment.

Indexed as

Pain ManagementSexismAdultDecision MakingEmergency Service, HospitalFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPainPhysiciansPractice Patterns, Physicians'Sex Factorsdecision-makinghealthcare disparitiespain managementsex bias

Identifiers

PMID39102546
PMCPMC11331074

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.