ReviewNaunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology2026
Redesigning medicine: integrating sex and gender for better health outcomes.
Review in Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Uncovering Sex and Gender Differences in Sarcoidosis: A Systematic Review of Current Evidence.Journal of personalized medicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Both the biological sex and the socio-cultural gender play a central role in medical care, influencing diagnosis, disease progression, and treatment decisions. Despite well-established and substantial differences between men and women, sex-specific differentiation in guidelines, and dosing protocols remain limited. This gap in care has deep historical roots: for decades, women were systematically excluded from clinical trials resulting in a pronounced sex bias in medical research. Although recent efforts have been made to address these inequalities, women are still under-represented in many clinical trials. However, recent inclusive research has highlighted the relevance of a sex- and gender-sensitive medicine for women and men. It is becoming increasingly acknowledged that diseases that preponderately affect women, such as breast cancer or depression, can also manifest in men. This recognition has prompted the development of sex- and gender-sensitive diagnostic tools, for example in the assessment of depression. Similarly, in the context of myocardial infarction, it is now well established that the classical signs of a heart attack are predominantly male-specific manifestations, while women experience a range of symptoms that do not fully overlap with the symptoms in males. Here, we will take a closer look at sex- and gender-specific differences in medicine, highlight key historical developments and milestones and discuss prospects for the future sex- and gender sensitive medicine.
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.