BACKGROUND: Adequate representation of women in research has been deemed essential. METHODS: Cancer research published in 8 journals in 2006 was reviewed. The percentage of women among study participants was compared with the proportion expected from population-based estimates of sex-specific cancer incidence, using binomial tests. Differences were assessed in sex distribution of participants by funding source, author sex, and focus of research with the Student t test, and in a linear regression model controlling for cancer type. RESULTS: A total of 1534 cancer research articles were identified, of which 661 (representing 1,096,098 participants) were prospective clinical studies and were analyzed further. For all 7 non-sex-specific cancer types assessed, the majority of studies analyzed included a lower proportion of women than the proportion of women among patients having cancer of that type in the general population. Among studies focusing on cancer treatment, women constituted a significantly lower overall proportion of the participants in the analyzed studies than expected for 6 of 7 non-sex-specific cancer types (P < .001). Among non-sex-specific studies, the mean percentage of participants who were women was 38.8%. Non-sex-specific studies reporting government funding had a higher percentage of female participants (mean 41.3% vs 36.9%; P = .005). In a regression model controlling for cancer type, lack of government funding (P = .03) and focus on cancer treatment (P = .03) were found to be independent significant predictors of a lower percentage of female participants. CONCLUSIONS: Women were under-represented as participants in recently published, high-impact studies of non-sex-specific cancers. Studies that received government funding included a higher proportion of female subjects.
BACKGROUND: Adequate representation of women in research has been deemed essential. METHODS:Cancer research published in 8 journals in 2006 was reviewed. The percentage of women among study participants was compared with the proportion expected from population-based estimates of sex-specific cancer incidence, using binomial tests. Differences were assessed in sex distribution of participants by funding source, author sex, and focus of research with the Student t test, and in a linear regression model controlling for cancer type. RESULTS: A total of 1534 cancer research articles were identified, of which 661 (representing 1,096,098 participants) were prospective clinical studies and were analyzed further. For all 7 non-sex-specific cancer types assessed, the majority of studies analyzed included a lower proportion of women than the proportion of women among patients having cancer of that type in the general population. Among studies focusing on cancer treatment, women constituted a significantly lower overall proportion of the participants in the analyzed studies than expected for 6 of 7 non-sex-specific cancer types (P < .001). Among non-sex-specific studies, the mean percentage of participants who were women was 38.8%. Non-sex-specific studies reporting government funding had a higher percentage of female participants (mean 41.3% vs 36.9%; P = .005). In a regression model controlling for cancer type, lack of government funding (P = .03) and focus on cancer treatment (P = .03) were found to be independent significant predictors of a lower percentage of female participants. CONCLUSIONS:Women were under-represented as participants in recently published, high-impact studies of non-sex-specific cancers. Studies that received government funding included a higher proportion of female subjects.
Authors: Carolyn M Hettrich; Sommer Hammoud; Lauren E LaMont; Elizabeth A Arendt; Jo A Hannafin Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2015-07-22 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: Ethan B Ludmir; C David Fuller; Shalini Moningi; Walker Mainwaring; Timothy A Lin; Austin B Miller; Amit Jethanandani; Andres F Espinoza; Vivek Verma; Benjamin D Smith; Grace L Smith; Noam A VanderWalde; Emma B Holliday; B Ashleigh Guadagnolo; Thomas E Stinchcombe; Reshma Jagsi; Daniel R Gomez; Bruce D Minsky; Claus Rödel; Emmanouil Fokas Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2020-02-01 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Anita Kurt; Hope Kincaid; Lauren Semler; Jeanne L Jacoby; Melanie B Johnson; Beth A Careyva; Brian Stello; Timothy Friel; John C Smulian; Mark C Knouse Journal: J Racial Ethn Health Disparities Date: 2017-12-26
Authors: Irwin M Feuerstein; Marjorie R Jenkins; Susan G Kornstein; Michael S Lauer; Pamela E Scott; Tonse N K Raju; Tamara Johnson; Stephanie Devaney; Milena Lolic; Marsha Henderson; Janine Austin Clayton Journal: J Womens Health (Larchmt) Date: 2018-10 Impact factor: 2.681
Authors: Judith Currier; Dawn Averitt Bridge; Debbie Hagins; Carmen D Zorrilla; Judith Feinberg; Robert Ryan; Ron Falcon; Alan Tennenberg; Joseph Mrus; Kathleen Squires Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2010-09-21 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Marilia Santini-Oliveira; Luiz A B Camacho; Thiago M L Souza; Paula M Luz; Mauricio T L Vasconcellos; Carmem B W Giacoia-Gripp; Mariza G Morgado; Estevão P Nunes; Alberto S Lemos; Ana C G Ferreira; Ronaldo I Moreira; Valdiléa G Veloso; Marilda M Siqueira; Beatriz Grinsztejn Journal: PLoS One Date: 2012-06-25 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Shehara Mendis; Seerat Anand; Joanna M Karasinska; Arvind Dasari; Joseph M Unger; Anirudh Gothwal; Lee M Ellis; Gauri Varadhachary; Scott Kopetz; Michael J Overman; Kanwal Raghav; Jonathan M Loree Journal: Oncologist Date: 2020-10-07 Impact factor: 5.837