PURPOSE: The aim of this report was to study the presence and extent of gender bias and reporting in radiology human subjects research. METHODS: For this bibliometric analysis, the authors reviewed all articles published between January 1, 2016, and June 30, 2016, in seven of the most cited general radiology journals. From each original research article studying human subjects, the number and gender of participants and whether gender-based results were reported were manually extracted. Articles evaluating gender-specific body parts were excluded. Article-level subject gender matching percentages were calculated and descriptive statistics reported. RESULTS: Of all 1,065 target journal articles during the study window, 522 met the human subjects research inclusion criteria. Of these, 48 (9.2%) made no mention at all of research subjects' gender. Of the 473 articles mentioning gender, 147 (31.1%) had more female and 308 (65.1%) more male subjects. But in aggregate, 105,763 of 254,102 (41.6%) of all subjects were male and 142,069 (55.9%) were female. By quartile distribution, subject gender matching was very variable (12.9% of articles with <25% match, 23.7% with 25%-50%, 29.4% with 50%-75%, and 34.0% with ≥75%). Of articles including subjects of both genders, however, only 27.5% (126 of 458) reported any gender-based results. CONCLUSIONS: In human subjects research published in the most cited general radiology journals, the gender of human subjects is a poorly controlled, and frequently neglected, variable. In an emerging era of personalized medicine, initiatives to ensure transparent reporting of gender-specific results may help catalyze otherwise overlooked discoveries to advance the health of all.
PURPOSE: The aim of this report was to study the presence and extent of gender bias and reporting in radiology human subjects research. METHODS: For this bibliometric analysis, the authors reviewed all articles published between January 1, 2016, and June 30, 2016, in seven of the most cited general radiology journals. From each original research article studying human subjects, the number and gender of participants and whether gender-based results were reported were manually extracted. Articles evaluating gender-specific body parts were excluded. Article-level subject gender matching percentages were calculated and descriptive statistics reported. RESULTS: Of all 1,065 target journal articles during the study window, 522 met the human subjects research inclusion criteria. Of these, 48 (9.2%) made no mention at all of research subjects' gender. Of the 473 articles mentioning gender, 147 (31.1%) had more female and 308 (65.1%) more male subjects. But in aggregate, 105,763 of 254,102 (41.6%) of all subjects were male and 142,069 (55.9%) were female. By quartile distribution, subject gender matching was very variable (12.9% of articles with <25% match, 23.7% with 25%-50%, 29.4% with 50%-75%, and 34.0% with ≥75%). Of articles including subjects of both genders, however, only 27.5% (126 of 458) reported any gender-based results. CONCLUSIONS: In human subjects research published in the most cited general radiology journals, the gender of human subjects is a poorly controlled, and frequently neglected, variable. In an emerging era of personalized medicine, initiatives to ensure transparent reporting of gender-specific results may help catalyze otherwise overlooked discoveries to advance the health of all.