Sex and gender matters : A sex-specific analysis of original articles published in the Wiener klinische Wochenschrift between 2013 and 2015

Éva Rásky, Anja Waxenegger, Sylvia Groth, Erwin Stolz, Michel Schenouda, Andrea Berzlanovich, Éva Rásky, Anja Waxenegger, Sylvia Groth, Erwin Stolz, Michel Schenouda, Andrea Berzlanovich

Abstract

Background: The variables sex and gender are significantly related to health and disease of women and men. Aiming at quality research, biomedical publications need to account for the key variables sex and gender.

Methods: All original articles published in the Wiener klinische Wochenschrift between 2013 and 2015 were extracted into a database. As a result, the 195 published articles were selected for review led by the Sex and Gender Equity in Research Guidelines (SAGER) by the European Association of Science Editors (EASE). The slightest indications of mentioning sex and/or gender were assessed by two reviewers independently from one another.

Results: Of the 195 publications 4 specified sex and/or gender in the title, and 62 in the abstract. None of the authors reported whether the variables sex and/or gender may have relevance and were taken into account in the design of the study. Of the 195 publications 48 mentioned the potential implications of sex and/or gender on the study results.

Conclusion: In the time span studied most of the selected articles of this journal did not account for the variables sex and/or gender systematically or adequately. For future research the existing guidelines can help authors and editors to overcome gender bias due to inadequate methods. Applying sex and gender-sensitive methods to biomedical and health research is necessary for high quality and as a precondition for results which are generalizable and applicable to both women and men.

Keywords: (SAGER) Guideline adherence; (SAGER) guideline adherence; Quality improvement; Research; Research quality improvement.

Conflict of interest statement

É. Rásky, A. Waxenegger, S. Groth, E. Stolz, M. Schenouda, and A. Berzlanovich declare that they have no competing interests.

References

    1. The Boston Women’s Health Book Collective . Our bodies, ourselves. New York: Touchstone; 2011.
    1. Wenger NK, Speroff L, Packard B. Cardiovascular health and disease in women. N Engl J Med. 1993;329(4):247–256. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199307223290406.
    1. Healy B. The Yentl syndrome. N Engl J Med. 1991;325(4):274–276. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199107253250408.
    1. National Institutes of Health/NIH . Guidelines on the inclusion of women and minorities as subjects in clinical research. 1994.
    1. Wizeman TM, Pardue M-L, editors. Exploring the biological contributions to health: does sex matter? Washington: National Academy Press; 2001.
    1. Mennecozzi M, Landesmann B, Palosaari T, Harris G, Whelan M. Sex differences in liver toxicity – do female and male human primary hepatocytes react differently to toxicants in vitro? PLOS ONE. 2015;10(4):e0122786. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0122786.
    1. Scheipl S, Rásky É, editors. Gender-Unterschiede in der Orthopädie. Wien: facultas; 2012.
    1. Bose D, Segul-Gomez M, Crandall JR. Vulnerability of female drivers involved in motor vehicle crashes: an analysis of US population at risk. Am J Public Health. 2011;101(12):2368–2373. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2011.300275.
    1. Anderson GD. Gender differences in pharmacological response. Int Rev Neurobiol. 2008;83:1–10. doi: 10.1016/S0074-7742(08)00001-9.
    1. WHO/World Health Organization . Commission on social determinants of health/CSDH. Closing the gap in a generation. Geneva: WHO; 2008.
    1. Phillips SP. Defining and measuring gender: a social determinant of health whose time has come. Int J Equity Health. 2005;4:11. doi: 10.1186/1475-9276-4-11.
    1. Holdcroft A. Gender bias in research: how does it affect evidence based medicine? J R Soc Med. 2007;100(1):2–3. doi: 10.1177/014107680710000102.
    1. Krieger N. Genders, sexes, and health: what are the connections – and why does it matter? Int J Epidemiol. 2003;32:652–657. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyg156.
    1. National Institutes of Health/NIH . Methods and techniques for integrating the biological variable sex into preclinical research. Washington, DC: Department of Health & Human Services; 2016.
    1. IOM/Institute of Medicine . Sex-specific reporting of scientific research: a workshop summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2012.
    1. Clow B, Pederson A, Haworth-Brockman M, Bernier J. Sex and gender in systematic review. In: Boscoe M, Doull M, Runnels VE, editors. Rising to the challenge: sex- and gender-based analysis for health planning, policy and research in Canada. Halifax: Nova Scotia, Atlantic Centre of Excellence for Women’s Health; 2009. pp. 44–48.
    1. Kim AM, Tingen CM, Woodruff TK. Sex bias in trials and treatment must end. Nature. 2010;465(7299):688–689. doi: 10.1038/465688a.
    1. Hammarström A, Wiklund M, Stålnacke B-M, Lehti A, Haukenes I, Fjellman-Wiklund A. Developing a tool for increasing the awareness about gendered and intersectional processes in the clinical assessment of patients – a study of pain rehabilitation. PLOS ONE. 2016;1(4):e0152735. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0152735.
    1. Rásky É, Groth S. Comparative benefits and harms of antidepressant, psychological, complementary, and exercise treatments for major depression (letter) Ann Intern Med. 2016;165(6):452–453. doi: 10.7326/L16-0210.
    1. Annandale E, Hammarström A. Constructing the ‘gender-specific body’: a critical discourse analysis of publications in the field of gender-specific medicine. Health (London) 2011;15(6):571–587. doi: 10.1177/1363459310364157.
    1. Doyal L. Sex and gender: the challenges for epidemiologists. Int J Health Serv. 2003;33(3):569–579. doi: 10.2190/CWK2-U7R6-VCE0-E47P.
    1. Heidari S, Babor TF, DeCastro P, Tort S, Curno M. Sex and gender equity in research: rationale for the SAGER guidelines and recommended use. Res Integr Peer Rev. 2016;1:2. doi: 10.1186/s41073-016-0007-6.
    1. Clayton JA, Collins FS. NIH to balance sex in cell and animal studies. Nature. 2014;509(7500):282–283. doi: 10.1038/509282a.
    1. Schiebinger L, Klinge I, Paik HY, Sánchez de Madariaga I, Schraudner M, and Stefanick M. (Eds.) (2011–2017). Gendered Innovations in Science, Health & Medicine, Engineering, and Environment (); . Accessed 9 Oct 2017
    1. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) Recommendations for the conduct, reporting, editing, and publication of scholarly work in medical journals. 2015.
    1. Viergever RF, Li K. Trends in global clinical trial registration: an analysis of numbers of registered clinical trials in different parts of the world from 2004 to 2013. BMJ Open. 2015;5:e008932. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-008932.
    1. European Association of Science Editors (EASE) Gender Policy Committee . SAGER guidelines sex and gender equity in research. 2016.
    1. Heidari S, Babor T. Science editors: evaluate gender equality in journals. Nature. 2013;495(7493):47. doi: 10.1038/495047e.
    1. DeCastro P, Heidari S, Babor TF. Sex and gender equity in research (SAGER): reporting guidelines as a framework of innovation for an equitable approach to gender medicine. Ann Ist Super Sanita. 2016;52(2):154–157.
    1. Olff M. Five years of EJPT. EJPT 2016; 7: 10.3402/ejpt.v7.31350; . Accessed 9 Oct 2017
    1. Geller SE, Koch A, Pellettieri B, Carnes M. Inclusion, analysis and reporting of sex and race/ethnicity in clinical trials: have we made progress? J Womens Health. 2011;20(3):315–320. doi: 10.1089/jwh.2010.2469.
    1. National Institutes of Health . Consideration of sex and biological variable in NIH-funded research. 2015.
    1. Doull M, Runnels VE, Tudiver S, Boscoe M. Appraising the evidence: applying sex and gender based analysis (SGBA) to Cochrane systematic reviews on cardiovascular diseases. J Womens Health. 2010;19(5):997–1003. doi: 10.1089/jwh.2009.1626.
    1. Hammarström A, Annandale E. A conceptual muddle: an empirical analysis of the use of sex and gender in gender-specific medicine journals. PLOS ONE. 2012;7(4):e34193. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0034193.
    1. Hettrich CM, Hammoud S, LaMont LE, Arendt EA, Hannafin JA. Sex-specific analysis of data in high-impact orthopaedic journals: how are we doing? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015;473:3700–3704. doi: 10.1007/s11999-015-4457-9.
    1. Oertelt-Prigione S, Regitz-Zagrosek V. Sex and gender aspects in clinical medicine. In: Oertelt-Prigione S, editor. Sex and gender in medical literature. London: Springer; 2012. pp. 9–15.
    1. Frick J, Jahn I. Wie geschlechtersensibel sind die Abstrakts für die DGSMP-Jahrestagung 2011? Eine Auswertung der Einschätzungen im Peer Review der Abstrakts. Gesundheitswesen. 2012
    1. Johnson JL, Beaudet A. Sex and gender reporting in health research: why Canada should be a leader. Can J Public Health. 2012;104(1):e80–e81.
    1. Yordanov Y, Dechartres A, Porcher R, Boutron I, Altman D, Ravaud P. Avoidable waste of research related to inadequate methods in clinical trials. BMJ. 2015;350:h809. doi: 10.1136/bmj.h809.
    1. Nieuwenhoven L, Klinge I. Scientific excellence in applying sex- and gender-sensitive methods in biomedical and health research. J Womens Health (Larchmt) 2010;19(2):313–321. doi: 10.1089/jwh.2008.1156.
    1. Tingen CM, Kim AM, Wu P-H, Woodruff TK. Sex and sensitivity: the continued need for sex-based biomedical research and implementation. Womens Health. 2010;6(4):511–516.

Source: PubMed

Patrocinadores y Colaboradores

Condiciones médicas

Intervenciones de drogas

3
Suscribir