Exclusion of women from clinical research: myth or reality? - PubMed (original) (raw)
Exclusion of women from clinical research: myth or reality?
Wendy A Rogers et al. Mayo Clin Proc. 2008 May.
Abstract
Objective: To determine the proportion of male and female research participants and rates of sex-based analysis and sex-specific reporting in published Australian clinical research.
Participants and methods: We assessed 400 clinical studies involving Australian-only participants, published in journals between January 1, 2003, and May 31, 2006 (100 per year). Numbers of male and female participants in each study and presence or absence of analysis by sex (covariate adjustment, subgroup analysis, or sex-specific reporting) were recorded. Sex-specific studies were evaluated to determine whether the exclusion of one sex was biologically necessary.
Results: The total sample comprised 546,824 participants, of whom 73% were female; 36 studies were male-only, 78 were female-only. Of the participants in 286 studies that were not sex-specific, 56% were female. Of 114 sex-specific studies, the segregation by sex was deemed to be biologically necessary in 62%, ie, the research related directly to male or female biological function. More than one-quarter (28%) of studies with 30 participants or more published covariate adjustment or subgroup analysis by sex; 7% included sex-specific reporting of results.
Conclusion: We found no routine exclusion of women; however, few publications analyzed results by sex. Some studies excluded women or men for apparently arbitrary reasons. Research performed with male-only participants differed in nature and size from that performed with female-only participants. These data indicate the need to track the sex of research participants. In addition, they provide the basis for assessing appropriate inclusion of men and women in research and for comparing any relationship between different international regulatory models and the rates of female participation in research.
Comment in
- Dispelling the myths: calling for sex-specific reporting of trial results.
Hayes SN, Redberg RF. Hayes SN, et al. Mayo Clin Proc. 2008 May;83(5):523-5. doi: 10.4065/83.5.523. Mayo Clin Proc. 2008. PMID: 18452679 No abstract available.
Similar articles
- Dispelling the myths: calling for sex-specific reporting of trial results.
Hayes SN, Redberg RF. Hayes SN, et al. Mayo Clin Proc. 2008 May;83(5):523-5. doi: 10.4065/83.5.523. Mayo Clin Proc. 2008. PMID: 18452679 No abstract available. - Under-representation of women in high-impact published clinical cancer research.
Jagsi R, Motomura AR, Amarnath S, Jankovic A, Sheets N, Ubel PA. Jagsi R, et al. Cancer. 2009 Jul 15;115(14):3293-301. doi: 10.1002/cncr.24366. Cancer. 2009. PMID: 19507175 - Reporting of gender-related information in clinical trials of drug therapy for myocardial infarction.
Rochon PA, Clark JP, Binns MA, Patel V, Gurwitz JH. Rochon PA, et al. CMAJ. 1998 Aug 25;159(4):321-7. CMAJ. 1998. PMID: 9732709 Free PMC article. - Symptom presentation of women with acute coronary syndromes: myth vs reality.
Canto JG, Goldberg RJ, Hand MM, Bonow RO, Sopko G, Pepine CJ, Long T. Canto JG, et al. Arch Intern Med. 2007 Dec 10;167(22):2405-13. doi: 10.1001/archinte.167.22.2405. Arch Intern Med. 2007. PMID: 18071161 Review. - Women participants in research: assessing progress.
Low KG, Joliceour MR, Colman RA, Stone LE, Fleisher CL. Low KG, et al. Women Health. 1994;22(1):79-98. doi: 10.1300/J013v22n01_05. Women Health. 1994. PMID: 7900404 Review.
Cited by
- Sex differences in allometry for phenotypic traits in mice indicate that females are not scaled males.
Wilson LAB, Zajitschek SRK, Lagisz M, Mason J, Haselimashhadi H, Nakagawa S. Wilson LAB, et al. Nat Commun. 2022 Dec 12;13(1):7502. doi: 10.1038/s41467-022-35266-6. Nat Commun. 2022. PMID: 36509767 Free PMC article. - Light on Shedding: A Review of Sex and Menstrual Cycle Differences in the Physiological Effects of Light in Humans.
Vidafar P, Spitschan M. Vidafar P, et al. J Biol Rhythms. 2023 Feb;38(1):15-33. doi: 10.1177/07487304221126785. Epub 2022 Nov 11. J Biol Rhythms. 2023. PMID: 36367137 Free PMC article. Review. - The role of sex and gender in the changing levels of anxiety and depression during the COVID-19 pandemic: A cross-sectional study.
Seens H, Modarresi S, Fraser J, MacDermid JC, Walton DM, Grewal R. Seens H, et al. Womens Health (Lond). 2021 Jan-Dec;17:17455065211062964. doi: 10.1177/17455065211062964. Womens Health (Lond). 2021. PMID: 34844478 Free PMC article. - Exploring early combination strategy in Latin American patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes: a sub-analysis of the VERIFY study.
Vencio S, Manosalva JP, Mathieu C, Proot P, Lozno HY, Paldánius PM. Vencio S, et al. Diabetol Metab Syndr. 2021 Jun 15;13(1):68. doi: 10.1186/s13098-021-00686-9. Diabetol Metab Syndr. 2021. PMID: 34130731 Free PMC article. - Sex differences in pharmacokinetics predict adverse drug reactions in women.
Zucker I, Prendergast BJ. Zucker I, et al. Biol Sex Differ. 2020 Jun 5;11(1):32. doi: 10.1186/s13293-020-00308-5. Biol Sex Differ. 2020. PMID: 32503637 Free PMC article.
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources