ArticleBMJ open2026
Comparison of in-hospital outcomes and processes of care by patient and physician sex: a single-centre retrospective cohort study.
Article in BMJ open, 2026. 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.
- Physician-patient sex dyads and management of dyslipidaemia and hypertension in primary care: findings from two population-based studies.European heart journal. Quality of care & clinical outcomes · 2026Observational
- Physicians' gender and specialty in relation to adverse drug reaction reporting in Sweden.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2026Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivePrior research, mostly from North America, suggests improved clinical outcomes for female patients treated by female physicians. Whether these findings apply in European healthcare systems and how underlying processes of care vary by sex remains unclear. This study aimed to assess whether in-hospital outcomes and processes of care differ by patient sex, physician sex or their interaction, in a European setting.
designRetrospective cohort study.
settingGeneral internal medicine division of a Swiss tertiary teaching hospital.
participantsAdult inpatients (≥18 years) hospitalised between 2014 and 2024 and their primarily responsible physicians, classified by administrative sex (male vs female). The cohort included 20 094 hospitalisations (44.6% female patients) and 216 physicians (48.1% female). OUTCOME MEASURES: Outcomes included in-hospital mortality, 30-day mortality and 30-day readmission, as well as processes of care (resource use, advance care planning and cardiovascular low-value care). Multilevel mixed-effects regression models adjusted for patient and physician characteristics.
resultsFemale patients had lower in-hospital mortality (OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.89) and 30-day mortality (OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.87), lower hospitalisation costs (-4.26%, 95% CI -6.08% to -2.41%), fewer diagnostic and therapeutic procedures (-6.44%, 95% CI -9.76% to -3.01%), fewer blood tests (-8.95%, 95% CI -12.98% to -4.73%) and were less likely to have resuscitation orders (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.71) or intensive care unit transfer orders (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.73). They were, however, more likely to receive non-indicated antihypertensive treatment (OR 1.86, 95% CI 1.38 to 2.51). No significant differences were observed by physician sex or patient-physician sex interaction.
conclusionsIn a European tertiary teaching hospital with universal healthcare coverage, in-hospital outcomes and processes of care did not differ by physician sex or patient-physician sex interaction. Nevertheless, disparities by patient sex persisted, underscoring the need for sex-disaggregated quality monitoring and sex-sensitive medical training.
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.