PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

Permanent URI for this communityhttps://gendermore.unimore.it/handle/123456789/1575

Browse

Settings

Discipline: search.filters.discipline.CardiologyGeographical Area: search.filters.geographical.Canada

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender Equity Imbalance in Cardiology Scientific Sessions in the Americas Open PDF 
    (2021)
    Burgos, Lucrecia María
    ;
    Farina, Juan
    ;
    Sauce Perez, Ana Laura
    ;
    Ortiz Lopez, Hector Isaac Alejando
    ;
    Gupta, Shyla Devi
    Women remain largely under-represented in cardiology worldwide. This is especially reflected in scientific sessions where panelists have a male preponderant representation. The amount of gender equity in cardiology during scientific activities in the American continent is unknown. The objective was to compare gender distribution of invited panelists in cardiology scientific sessions across the Americas during the period 2019-2020. A retrospective analysis of the cardiology scientific sessions held in North, Central, and South America was conducted. Sessions published on the official site and social networks of the national cardiology societies from January 1, 2019 to August 10, 2020 were included. Gender distribution and all-male panels were compared according to geographic regions, year, roles in the panel, and the main topics of the session. Seven hundred fifty-two scientific sessions were analyzed, with 3786 participants. The median participation of women was 20% (IQR 0%-37.5%). Specifically, the statistics reflected a female participation of 25% (IQR 0%-43.6%) in North America, 12.5% (IQR 0%-43%) in Central America and 10% (IQR 0%-33.3%) in South America (P < 0.0001). Women participation in the panels was different according to the main topic of the session (P < 0.0001), with higher proportions in topics such as cardiovascular diseases in women, congenital heart disease and cardio oncology. The frequency of all-male panels was 36.8% (CI95% 33.3-40.1), and it increased over time (2019: 30.9% vs 2020: 40.3%; P = 0.012). There is gender inequity in cardiology scientific sessions held in different regions of the Americas, with low participation of women especially in interventionist panels and leadership roles.
  • Item type:Publication,
    The Persistence of Sex Bias in High-Impact Clinical Research Open PDF 
    (2022)
    Barlek, Mark H.
    ;
    Rouan, Jessica R.
    ;
    Wyatt, Thomas G.
    ;
    Helenowski, Irene
    ;
    Kibbe, Melina R.
    INTRODUCTION: Sex bias is present in clinical research resulting in disparities in the treatment of women. Our objective was to identify the prevalence of sex inclusiveness of participants in human clinical trials after the passage of National Institutes of Health (NIH) and United States Congress policies in 2015 and 2016 to increase female enrollment in clinical research. METHODS: We performed an observational analysis of data from registered clinical trials published in three high-impact biomedical journals from January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2019. RESULTS: One thousand four hundred and forty two manuscripts with 4,765,783 human subjects were included for analysis. Significantly more males (56%) than females (44%) were included in all three journals (P < 0.0001). Sex matching ≥ 80% was found in 24.6% of publications. Industry funded 43.7% of all studies enrolling significantly more males than females (60.8% versus 39.2%, P < 0.0001). NIH funded 10.2% of studies enrolling significantly more females than males (52.7% versus 47.3%, P < 0.0001). North America and Europe contributed 82.6% of the studies with each enrolling significantly more males than females (P < 0.0001). The United States was the country contributing the most studies (36.1%), enrolling significantly more males than females (55.5% versus 45.5%, P < 0.0001). Cardiovascular disease was the subject area of the most manuscripts among medical specialties (19%), enrolling significantly more males than females (64.9% versus 35.1%, P < 0.0001). Studies analyzed by clinical trial phase, type, trial, and allocation enrolled significantly more males than females (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Sex bias remains prevalent in human clinical research trials. Improvements have been made in NIH-funded clinical trials; however, this constitutes a small percentage of overall studies.