Sex bias: Is it pervasive in otolaryngology clinical research?

Abstract

Objectives/Hypothesis Recent initiatives highlight substantial sex bias in biomedical research. The objective was to determine whether sex bias is present in otolaryngology and whether sex is appropriately analyzed as an independent variable in otolaryngology clinical research. Study Design Literature review. Methods We systematically reviewed all 2016 articles in three major otolaryngology journals: The Laryngoscope, JAMA Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, and Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery. Extracted data included study origin, location, subspecialty, number/sex of subjects, ≥50% sex matching (SM≥50), and sex‐based statistical analysis. Results Six hundred of 1,209 articles comprising original clinical research were reviewed including 8,997,345,495 subjects (males: 3,898,559,264 [43.3%]; females: 5,095,592,583 [56.6%]; and unknown: 3,193,648 [0.04%]). There were 533/600 (88.8%) studies that included both sexes, eight (1.3%) included females only, five (0.8%) included males only, and 56 (9.3%) did not document participant sex. Only 280 studies (46.7%) analyzed data by sex, and 330 studies (60.7%) had SM≥50. Sex‐based statistical analysis and SM≥50 were similar in domestic and international studies (48.7% vs. 42.8% and 60.9% vs. 62%, respectively). Database studies performed sex‐based statistical analysis more frequently than single and multi‐institutional studies (79.1% vs. 40.4% and 43.4%, P < .00001). Analysis by sex was more frequently performed in head and neck surgery (53.6%) and pediatric otolaryngology (51.3%), whereas SM≥50 was highest in pediatric otolaryngology (86.8%) and otology (82.4%). Conclusions Sex bias exists in the clinical otolaryngology literature, with less than half the studies analyzing sex. Acknowledging the intertwinement of sex with disease pathophysiology and outcomes is important. Eliminating sex bias in research and clinical care should become a major focus for otolaryngologists. Level of Evidence NA Laryngoscope, 129:858–864, 2019

A computational fluid dynamics analysis of the effects of size and shape of anterior nasal septal perforations

“…As a result, the CFD findings can not be generalized to others due to inter-individual anatomic differences (13) . However, this highlights the previously demonstrated importance of providing subject sex and race data so that the applicability (external validity) of the findings can be assessed by the reader (28)(29)(30) . The findings presented here do agree with those of prior studies in different individuals (16)(17)(18)(19)(20) .…”

Analysis of Female Enrollment and Participant Sex by Burden of Disease in US Clinical Trials Between 2000 and 2020

“…13 Our study assesses 2 databases that accurately capture the entire US landscape of clinical trials and burden of disease, avoiding the sampling biases found in previous studies by comparing US data from the ClinicalTrials.gov registry with global disease burden. Although previous investigations narrowed their focus to specific diseases, 7,31,32,34,35 the present study provides novel data, assessing and comparing 17 disease categories. This study's distinct multivariable analysis examines potential factors, including disease category, that may be associated with sex bias among all US-based clinical trials.…”

Sex‐based outcomes in type I thyroplasty for nonparalytic glottic incompetence

“…Recent studies analyzing high‐impact general surgery and orthopedic surgery literature demonstrated that approximately one‐third of recently published studies performed analysis of outcomes by sex . A similar review of the otolaryngology literature by our institution found similar lack of sex‐ or gender‐based reporting of outcomes in three major otolaryngology journals . Males and females experience many conditions differently, including disease prevalence, symptom manifestations, and response to therapeutics.…”