Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2019 Dec;129(12):E420-E427.
doi: 10.1002/lary.27871. Epub 2019 Mar 1.

Sex distribution and sex data handling in published otolaryngology research

Jennifer J Liang  1 , Alexandra Belcastro  1   2 , Jessica Levi  1   3
Affiliations

Sex distribution and sex data handling in published otolaryngology research

Jennifer J Liang et al. Laryngoscope. 2019 Dec.

Abstract

Objectives/hypothesis: To characterize the sex distribution and sex data handling in published otolaryngology research.

Study design: Published research data analysis.

Methods: The total number of male and female participants, study characteristics, and sex data handling were abstracted from all original studies containing human participants published in five major otolaryngology journals from January 1, 2016 to December 31, 2016 and January 1, 2006 to December 31, 2006.

Results: Of the 1,128 studies from 2016 included in the analysis, 88.5% specified the sex of participants. There were 3,605,636 (42.1%) men and 4,515,508 (52.8%) women, with 429,006 (5.0%) participants unspecified. However, the average proportions of male and female participants (wherein studies are weighted the same, regardless of number of participants) were 0.579 and 0.421, respectively. Studies from the United States had a significantly higher proportion of women than studies from outside the United States. Subspecialties varied significantly in proportions. Average sex proportions in 2016 remained similar to those in 2006. For all studies, fewer than 40% of studies used any sex data for reporting of outcomes, for any sex-related analysis, or for discussion of results.

Conclusions: There was a higher average proportion of male participants than female. Studies originating in the United States included a greater number of female participants than those originating elsewhere, a possible result of explicit sex-inclusion policies governing research in the United States. Inclusion of women did not changed from 2006 to 2016, but analysis of sex data improved. Improvement of reporting, analysis, and discussion with regard to sex would benefit otolaryngology research and improve treatment for both sexes.

Level of evidence: NA Laryngoscope, 129:E420-E427, 2019.

Keywords: Gender; research bias; sex; sex bias.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

See all similar articles

References

BIBLIOGRAPHY

    1. Buvinić M, Medici A, Fernández E, Torres. AC. Gender differentials in health. In: Disease Control Priorities in Developing Countries. 2nd ed. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2006.
    1. Soldin OP, Mattison DR. Sex differences in pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics. Clin Pharmacokinet 2009;48:143-157.
    1. Merkatz RB. Inclusion of women in clinical trials: a historical overview of scientific, ethical, and legal issues. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs 1998;27:78-84.
    1. National Institutes of Health. Office of Research on Women's Health. Report of the advisory committee on research on women's health, fiscal years 2015 and 2016. Available at: https://orwh.od.nih.gov/sites/orwh/files/docs/ORWH_Biennial_Report_WEB_5.... Updated September 17, 2017. Accessed June 29, 2018.
    1. National Institutes of Health. Frequently asked questions. Inclusion on the basis of sex/gender and race/ethnicity. Available at: https://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/inclusion-basis-on-sex-gender-race.... Updated May 23, 2018. Accessed June 29, 2018.

LinkOut - more resources