Email updates

Keep up to date with the latest news and content from BMC Medicine and BioMed Central.

Journal App

google play app store
Open Access Correspondence

Analysis of sex and gender-specific research reveals a common increase in publications and marked differences between disciplines

Sabine Oertelt-Prigione1*, Roza Parol12, Stephan Krohn1, Robert Preißner2 and Vera Regitz-Zagrosek13

Author Affiliations

1 Institute of Gender in Medicine, Charité-Universitätsmedizin, Berlin, Germany

2 Structural Bioinformatics Group, Dep. Of Physiology, Charité - Universitätsmedizin, Berlin, Germany

3 Center for Cardiovascular Research (CCR), Charité-Universitätsmedizin, and German Heart Institute, Berlin, Germany

For all author emails, please log on.

BMC Medicine 2010, 8:70  doi:10.1186/1741-7015-8-70

Published: 10 November 2010

Abstract

Background

The incorporation of sex and gender-specific analysis in medical research is increasing due to pressure from public agencies, funding bodies, and the clinical and research community. However, generations of knowledge and publication trends in this discipline are currently spread over distinct specialties and are difficult to analyze comparatively.

Methods

Using a text-mining approach, we have analysed sex and gender aspects in research within nine clinical subspecialties - Cardiology, Pulmonology, Nephrology, Endocrinology, Gastroenterology, Haematology, Oncology, Rheumatology, Neurology - using six paradigmatic diseases in each one. Articles have been classified into five pre-determined research categories - Epidemiology, Pathophysiology, Clinical research, Management and Outcomes. Additional information has been collected on the type of study (human/animal) and the number of subjects included. Of the 8,836 articles initially retrieved, 3,466 (39%) included sex and gender-specific research and have been further analysed.

Results

Literature incorporating sex/gender analysis increased over time and displays a stronger trend if compared to overall publication increase. All disciplines, but cardiology (22%), demonstrated an underrepresentation of research about gender differences in management, which ranges from 3 to 14%. While the use of animal models for identification of sex differences in basic research varies greatly among disciplines, studies involving human subjects are frequently conducted in large cohorts with more than 1,000 patients (24% of all human studies).

Conclusions

Heterogeneity characterizes sex and gender-specific research. Although large cohorts are often analysed, sex and gender differences in clinical management are insufficiently investigated leading to potential inequalities in health provision and outcomes.