Literature DB >> 27551816

Determining If Sex Bias Exists in Human Surgical Clinical Research.

Neel A Mansukhani1, Dustin Y Yoon1, Katherine A Teter1, Vanessa C Stubbs1, Irene B Helenowski1, Teresa K Woodruff2, Melina R Kibbe3.   

Abstract

Importance: Sex is a variable that is poorly controlled for in clinical research.
Objectives: To determine if sex bias exists in human surgical clinical research, to determine if data are reported and analyzed using sex as an independent variable, and to identify specialties in which the greatest and least sex biases exist. Design, Setting, and Participants: For this bibliometric analysis, data were abstracted from 1303 original peer-reviewed articles published from January 1, 2011, through December 31, 2012, in 5 surgery journals. Main Outcomes and Measures: Study type, location, number and sex of participants, degree of sex matching of included participants, and inclusion of sex-based reporting, statistical analysis, and discussion of data.
Results: Of 2347 articles reviewed, 1668 (71.1%) included human participants. After excluding 365 articles, 1303 remained: 17 (1.3%) included males only, 41 (3.1%) included females only, 1020 (78.3%) included males and females, and 225 (17.3%) did not document the sex of the participants. Although female participants represent more than 50% (n = 57 688 606) of the total number (115 377 213) included, considerable variability existed with the number of male (46 111 818), female (58 805 665), and unspecified (10 459 730) participants included among the journals, between US domestic and international studies, and between single vs multicenter studies. For articles included in the study, 38.1% (497 of 1303) reported these data by sex, 33.2% (432 of 1303) analyzed these data by sex, and 22.9% (299 of 1303) included a discussion of sex-based results. Sex matching of the included participants in the research overall was poor, with 45.2% (589 of 1303) of the studies matching the inclusion of both sexes by 50%. During analysis of the different surgical specialties, a wide variation in sex-based inclusion, matching, and data reporting existed, with colorectal surgery having the best matching of male and female participants and cardiac surgery having the worst. Conclusions and Relevance: Sex bias exists in human surgical clinical research. Few studies included men and women equally, less than one-third performed data analysis by sex, and there was wide variation in inclusion and matching of the sexes among the specialties and the journals reviewed. Because clinical research is the foundation for evidence-based medicine, it is imperative that this disparity be addressed so that therapies benefit both sexes.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27551816      PMCID: PMC5142632          DOI: 10.1001/jamasurg.2016.2032

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JAMA Surg        ISSN: 2168-6254            Impact factor:   14.766


  47 in total

1.  Sex bias blights drug studies.

Authors:  Erika Check Hayden
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2010-03-18       Impact factor: 49.962

2.  Gender agenda: sex bias can be justified in animal research.

Authors:  Brad Bolon
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2010-07-01       Impact factor: 49.962

3.  Risk of Obstructive Sleep Apnea: Sex Matters.

Authors:  Mary Norine Walsh
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  2015-08-27       Impact factor: 29.690

Review 4.  Sex and racial differences in pharmacological response: where is the evidence? Pharmacogenetics, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics.

Authors:  Gail D Anderson
Journal:  J Womens Health (Larchmt)       Date:  2005 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 2.681

Review 5.  Methodologic ramifications of paying attention to sex and gender differences in clinical research.

Authors:  Martin H Prins; Kim M Smits; Luc J Smits
Journal:  Gend Med       Date:  2007

Review 6.  SeXX matters in immunity.

Authors:  J G Markle; E N Fish
Journal:  Trends Immunol       Date:  2013-11-13       Impact factor: 16.687

7.  A 9-valent HPV vaccine against infection and intraepithelial neoplasia in women.

Authors:  Elmar A Joura; Anna R Giuliano; Ole-Erik Iversen; Celine Bouchard; Constance Mao; Jesper Mehlsen; Edson D Moreira; Yuen Ngan; Lone Kjeld Petersen; Eduardo Lazcano-Ponce; Punnee Pitisuttithum; Jaime Alberto Restrepo; Gavin Stuart; Linn Woelber; Yuh Cheng Yang; Jack Cuzick; Suzanne M Garland; Warner Huh; Susanne K Kjaer; Oliver M Bautista; Ivan S F Chan; Joshua Chen; Richard Gesser; Erin Moeller; Michael Ritter; Scott Vuocolo; Alain Luxembourg
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2015-02-19       Impact factor: 91.245

Review 8.  The epidemiology of autoimmune diseases.

Authors:  Glinda S Cooper; Berrit C Stroehla
Journal:  Autoimmun Rev       Date:  2003-05       Impact factor: 9.754

Review 9.  Inclusion of minorities and women in cancer clinical trials, a decade later: Have we improved?

Authors:  Kat Kwiatkowski; Kathryn Coe; John C Bailar; G Marie Swanson
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2013-05-14       Impact factor: 6.860

10.  Women encounter ADRs more often than do men.

Authors:  Y Zopf; C Rabe; A Neubert; K G Gassmann; W Rascher; E G Hahn; K Brune; H Dormann
Journal:  Eur J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2008-07-05       Impact factor: 2.953

View more
  21 in total

1.  Joint Statement by the Surgery Journal Editors Group.

Authors: 
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2018-08       Impact factor: 3.352

2.  Sex bias in rhinology research.

Authors:  Elizabeth D Stephenson; Zainab Farzal; Adam M Zanation; Brent A Senior
Journal:  Int Forum Allergy Rhinol       Date:  2018-07-20       Impact factor: 3.858

3.  Race/Ethnicity and Age Distribution of Breast Cancer Diagnosis in the United States.

Authors:  Sahael M Stapleton; Tawakalitu O Oseni; Yanik J Bababekov; Ya-Ching Hung; David C Chang
Journal:  JAMA Surg       Date:  2018-06-01       Impact factor: 14.766

4.  Association of Author Gender With Sex Bias in Surgical Research.

Authors:  Nicholas Xiao; Neel A Mansukhani; Diego F Mendes de Oliveira; Melina R Kibbe
Journal:  JAMA Surg       Date:  2018-07-01       Impact factor: 14.766

5.  Gender (and other) equity, diversity and inclusion in surgery

Authors:  Edward J. Harvey; Chad G. Ball
Journal:  Can J Surg       Date:  2019-10-01       Impact factor: 2.089

6.  Égalité entre les sexes (et autres identités), diversité et inclusion en chirurgie

Authors:  Edward J. Harvey; Chad G. Ball
Journal:  Can J Surg       Date:  2019-10-01       Impact factor: 2.089

7.  Count me in: using a patient portal to minimize implicit bias in clinical research recruitment.

Authors:  Vaishnavi Kannan; Kathleen E Wilkinson; Mereeja Varghese; Sarah Lynch-Medick; Duwayne L Willett; Teresa A Bosler; Ling Chu; Samantha I Gates; M E Blair Holbein; Mallory M Willett; Sharon C Reimold; Robert D Toto
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2019-08-01       Impact factor: 4.497

8.  Sex-based differences in transfusion need after severe injury: Findings of the PROPPR study.

Authors:  Marta L McCrum; Brian Leroux; Tingzhi Fang; Eileen Bulger; Sam Arbabi; Charles E Wade; Erin Fox; John B Holcomb; Bryce Robinson
Journal:  Surgery       Date:  2019-03-12       Impact factor: 3.982

9.  A randomized clinical trial of a new perioperative practice model on anxiety and health-related quality of life in arthroplasty patients.

Authors:  Maria Pulkkinen; Irma Jousela; Harri Sintonen; Janne Engblom; Sanna Salanterä; Kristiina Junttila
Journal:  Nurs Open       Date:  2021-02-12

10.  Unique Considerations for Females Undergoing Esophagectomy.

Authors:  Tamar B Nobel; Jennifer Livschitz; Mahmoud Eljalby; Yelena Y Janjigian; Manjit S Bains; Prasad S Adusumilli; David R Jones; Daniela Molena
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2020-07       Impact factor: 13.787

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.