ArticleFrontiers in psychiatry2024
An expert perspective on diversity-oriented standards for assessing sex and gender in clinical research.
Article in Frontiers in psychiatry, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Addressing gender disparities in the efficacy of psychological interventions for behavioral addictions: protocol for a systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Addiction science & clinical practice · 2026Article
- Associated factors of depression, anxiety, and suicide behavior among men in Switzerland: findings from the Swiss health survey 2022.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Randomized controlled trials require diverse patient groups to ensure broad applicability of results. However, gender minorities are often not included, which affects the generalizability and equity of healthcare outcomes. Inclusive research must consider the diversity of sex and gender to eliminate inequalities and improve health outcomes. Methods: A two-stage expert survey was conducted using a self-developed questionnaire in which the constructs of sex, gender, and gender expression were considered. Experts rated the importance and practicality of assessing these concepts in clinical trials and evaluated terms for suitability and comprehension. In addition, existing definitions were refined. Consensus was defined as 70% agreement or disagreement. Results: 14 out of 17 participating experts agreed on the importance to independently assess sex assigned at birth, and 9 out of 16 emphasized this for gender identity in clinical trials. Sex should be assessed with "Please specify your sex assigned at birth" and the answer categories "female", "male", "intersex". Gender identity should be assessed with "I identify as…" and the answer categories "woman", "man", "nonbinary", "trans woman", "trans man", "genderqueer", "genderfluid", "agender", "two spirit". Assessment of gender expression depends on the research question and may not be relevant for every study. Discussion: Our findings emphasize inclusivity by providing multiple gender options and improve data accuracy by allowing individuals to accurately report their gender identity. The results emphasize the importance of distinguishing between sex assigned at birth, gender identity, and gender expression in research. This ensures that gender diversity is accurately represented and considered, improving the relevance and inclusivity of 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.