Determination of sex differences requires formal test for differences: Comment on “lipoprotein‐subclass particle numbers in children with abdominal obesity”

Vorland, Colby J.; Golzarri‐Arroyo, Lilian; Maney, Donna L.; Brown, Andrew W.

doi:10.1111/ped.15489

Cited by 4 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 4 publications

(6 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, in a recent study of abdominal obesity in children (AO), the authors missed a large sex difference in the association between AO and a measure of lipoprotein particle number because their within-sex p-values showed non-significant associations in both girls and boys ( Akiyama et al, 2022 ). In fact, the interaction between sex and AO was highly significant ( P =0.001); the association in girls was positive and among boys, negative ( Vorland et al, 2023 ). The significant interaction serves as strong evidence that the association between AO and this measure of lipoprotein does depend on sex – a potentially important finding that was masked by a DISS approach.…”

Section: Characterization Phase: Analysis Of Sex-based Datamentioning

confidence: 95%

Best practices to promote rigor and reproducibility in the era of sex-inclusive research

Rich-Edwards,

Maney

2023

eLife

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To enhance inclusivity and rigor, many funding agencies and journals now mandate the inclusion of females as well as males in biomedical studies. These mandates have enhanced generalizability and created unprecedented opportunities to discover sex differences. However, education in sound methods to consider sex as a subgroup category has lagged behind, resulting in a problematic literature in which study designs, analyses, and interpretations of results are often flawed. Here, we outline best practices for complying with sex-inclusive mandates, both for studies in which sex differences are a primary focus and for those in which they are not. Our recommendations are organized within the “4 Cs of Studying Sex to Strengthen Science: Consideration, Collection, Characterization and Communication,” a framework developed by the Office of Research on Women’s Health at the National Institutes of Health in the United States. Following these guidelines should help researchers include females and males in their studies while at the same time upholding high standards of rigor.

show abstract

Section: Characterization Phase: Analysis Of Sex-based Datamentioning

confidence: 95%