ArticleFrontiers in pharmacology2024
Sex bias in prospective follow-up observational studies with drugs carried out in a southern region of Europe.
Article in Frontiers in pharmacology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The impact of sex bias in medical research is a matter of significant relevance and importance especially in the modern age. Despite notable improvements in sex equity across various societal fields, disparities in sex representation persist within clinical and pharmacological research. The objective of this article is to investigate the sex bias within Prospective Follow-up Observational Studies with Drugs authorized by the Advisory Commission on Post-Authorization Studies with Medicines in Catalonia, a southern European region. Methods: A retrospective study that analyses data from final reports of Prospective Follow-up Observational Studies with Drugs authorized by the Advisory Commission on Post-Authorization Studies with Medicines in Catalonia from 2015 to 2021. Disease categories and specific diseases, obtained from the Global Data Exchange, were evaluated for sex bias, comparing female participation to female prevalence. Results: There were 1,06,399 participants, including 43,778 female participants (42.5%). A significant underrepresentation of females was observed across various disease categories. Notably, in 12 out of 19 categories (63.2%), a pronounced female underrepresentation (sex bias ≤ 0.05) was evident, particularly in the categories of HIV/AIDS and sexually transmitted infections (sex bias = -0.5659). Furthermore, 11 categories (57.9%) also demonstrated significant female underrepresentation, with the same notable categories, HIV/AIDS and sexually transmitted infections (sex bias = -0.4439). When examining specific diseases, significant female underrepresentation was observed in 13 out of 29 diseases (46.4%), especially in HIV (sex bias = -0.4781). The overall findings indicate that the degree of sex bias was notably less favorable for females in numerous disease categories and specific conditions. Conclusion: Our study has demonstrated a significant sex bias within observational studies, mirroring patterns observed in clinical trials. Importantly, our findings highlight a pervasive underrepresentation of women across various disease categories and specific conditions. Despite efforts to promote both sexes inclusivity, our results emphasize the persistent challenges in achieving balanced sex representation in study populations. Furthermore, the absence of categorization of diseases based on male and female prevalence poses a significant challenge in accessing pertinent data, particularly concerning the sex distribution of specific diseases.
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.