ArticleMedEdPublish (2016)2025
Beyond bikini medicine: An analysis of Sex- and Gender-Informed Medicine in a preclinical undergraduate medical education.
Article in MedEdPublish (2016), 2025. 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.
- Advancing Medical Education in Sex- and Gender-Based Mechanisms of Disease: Current Educator Knowledge and Future Directions.Women's health reports (New Rochelle, N.Y.)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Despite the expanding literature demonstrating widespread sex and gender differences across all organ systems, the inclusion of Sex- and Gender-Informed Medicine (SGIM) in medical education is lacking, leaving medical students without an appreciation for physiologic and sociocultural differences that affect health, disease, and healthcare delivery. Methods: We performed an audit of the five courses of the Harvard Medical School pre-clinical curriculum that teach physiology and pathophysiology using case-based collaborative learning (CBCL). Using a standard codebook, reviewers recorded: time per case, diagnosis/focus of case, age, sex, gender, pronouns, pregnancy status, and sexual orientation. Coders were asked to determine if the CBCL patient's sex/gender chosen was "intentional" and if there was further discussion around sex- and gender-specific influences on disease. Each case was coded by two auditors, with discrepancies adjudicated by a third. Results: Across five courses, 591 patient cases taught over 380 hours were analyzed. 298 (50.4%) of CBCL patients were women, 235 (39.8%) men, five (0.8%) non-binary, and 53 (9.0%) gender undefined. Relationships were predominantly between discordant gendered partners (37 cases, 82.2% of cases with relationships). Only 60 cases (10.2%) were coded as having a patient sex or gender that was intentionally chosen during case design, predominantly to reflect population-level disease epidemiology or prevalence by gender (45%). Only 39 cases (6.6%) included deliberate learning dedicated to sex or gender differences in health and disease, with most discussions within cases of reproduction or inflammatory/autoimmune diseases. Conclusion: Our review demonstrated a deficiency of SGIM content in our institution's preclinical curriculum with only 6.6% of CBCL cases providing deliberate teaching on sex and gender differences in health and disease, largely confined to reproductive topics. We propose the creation of dedicated, daily course material in collaboration with experts to increase exposure to SGIM so students can confidently treat any patient.
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.