ReviewBritish journal of haematology2025
Are we ignoring sex differences in haematological malignancies? A call for improved reporting.
Review in British journal of haematology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- BEAM versus EAM, FEAM, BeEAM, and TEAM: exploring conditioning strategies in autologous stem cell transplantation for Hodgkin lymphoma a retrospective study of the LWP of EBMT.Bone marrow transplantation · 2026Article
- Characteristics of solid versus hematologic malignancies in people living with human immunodeficiency virus.BMC infectious diseases · 2026Article
- "Protected time" for clinical investigators in medical oncology: The persistent gap between expectation and reality.Cancer · 2026Article
- Sex Differences in Cancer-Associated Thrombosis.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Beyond XX and XY, Understanding Sex Differences in Leukemia.Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Prognostic outcome of extranodal marginal zone B-cell lymphoma: a nationwide cohort.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Barriers and facilitators to representative acute leukemia trial participation at National Cancer Institute-designated comprehensive cancer centers.The oncologist · 2025Article
- Are we ignoring sex differences in haematological malignancies? A call for improved reporting.British journal of haematology · 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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
There are clear sex-based differences in the incidence, risk factors and mortality of most haematologic malignancies (HM). Despite known differences in physiology, haematopoiesis, molecular profiles, drug pharmacokinetics, treatment-related toxicities and treatment experience, males and females receive standardized and identical treatment for most HMs. Previous published work has demonstrated disparities in female representation in cancer clinical trials and highlighted a paucity of information on differential treatment outcomes and toxicities by sex. We analysed references of 182 clinical trials which form the basis of recent treatment guidelines from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network and found a minority (17/9.3%) did not report the sex distribution of trial participants. However, a majority (165/90.6%) did not report sex-disaggregated outcomes. Of those that did, 36.5% showed outcome differences by sex. Academic leadership by women in the assessed trials as well as in guidelines committees was disproportionately lower than their representation in the profession. We call on all clinical trials leaders, consortia and guideline builders to include sex-disaggregated data in their analyses, reporting these in a transparent manner (as per regulations mandating such reporting), and for investigators to assess whether aetiological factors differ by sex. These actions will enhance personalized prevention, therapy and follow-up.
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.