Since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic there has been a global call for sex/gender-disaggregated data to be made available, which has uncovered important findings about COVID-19 testing, incidence, severity, hospitalisations, and deaths. This mini review scopes the evidence base for efficacy, effectiveness, and safety of COVID-19 vaccines from both experimental and observational research, and asks whether (1) women and men were equally recruited and represented in vaccine research, (2) the outcomes of studies were presented or analysed by sex and/or gender, and (3) there is evidence of sex and/or gender differences in outcomes. Following a PubMed search, 41 articles were eligible for inclusion, including seven randomised controlled trials (RCTs), 11 cohort studies, eight cross-sectional surveys, eight routine surveillance studies, and seven case series. Overall, the RCTs contained equal representation of women and men; however, the observational studies contained a higher percentage of women. Of 10 studies with efficacy data, only three (30%) presented sex/gender-disaggregated results. Safety data was included in 35 studies and only 12 (34%) of these presented data by sex/gender. For those that did present disaggregated data, overall, the majority of participants reporting adverse events were women. There is a paucity of reporting and analysis of COVID-19 vaccine data by sex/gender. Research should be designed in a gender-sensitive way to present and, where possible analyse, data by sex/gender to ensure that there is a robust and specific evidence base of efficacy and safety data to assist in building public confidence and promote high vaccine coverage.

No abstract

Background: Historically, women's health has focused on reproductive health. However, noncommunicable and communicable diseases comprise much of the burden of disease in women. Methods: A quantitative analysis of the main health content of articles published in six women's health journals (WHJ) and five general medical journals (GMJ) in 2010 and 2020 was conducted to categorize the main medical area topics of published articles and the life stage under study. Findings were compared with the leading causes of disease in women according to the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) study. Results: There were 1483 articles eligible for analysis. In total, in WHJ, 44% of topics were reproductive health, increasing from 36% in 2010 to 49% in 2020, which was similar to GMJ. Noncommunicable disease was the next most addressed topic, with cancer being the major disease area covered. When compared with the GBD study, major disease areas such as infectious disease, cardiovascular disease, and musculoskeletal disorders were underrepresented as topics in women's health publications. Most articles that focused on a particular life stage were on pregnancy or the reproductive years, with very few articles on menopause. Conclusion: Women's health publishing remains largely focused on reproductive health topics, with few articles on many of the major causes of morbidity and mortality in women. Journals, researchers, funders, and research priority setters should embrace a broader view of women's health to effectively cover content that reflects the broad range of health issues impacting women across the life span.