A 10-year follow-up study of sex inclusion in the biological sciences.
Level 4 - case-series / case-control
Level 4 by design analogy (cross-sectional bibliometric comparison across two time points)
PubMed 32513386 · doi:10.7554/eLife.56344
What was done
Authors conducted a bibliometric follow-up study evaluating papers published in 34 journals in 2019 across nine biological disciplines to assess changes in sex inclusion following the 2016 NIH sex as a biological variable policy. Results were compared with a baseline bibliometric study from 2009 (Beery and Zucker).
What was found
The abstract reports directional findings without providing raw counts or percentages. Across all nine biological disciplines, there was a significant increase in the proportion of studies including both sexes compared to 2009. However, in eight of the nine disciplines, there was no change in the proportion of studies analyzing data by sex. The majority of studies provided no rationale for single-sex designs or omitting sex-based analyses, and those providing rationale frequently cited misconceptions about female hormonal variability.
Why it matters
Policy mandates have improved the inclusion of both male and female subjects in biological research, but widespread failure to disaggregate and analyze data by sex leaves critical biological differences unexplored.
Limits
The abstract does not report the total number of articles evaluated (n is unspecified), nor any effect sizes, p-values, or percentages. As a repeated cross-sectional bibliometric comparison limited to 34 journals, findings may not represent all biological literature, and causality attributable specifically to the NIH policy cannot be established.
Cited by
- supports Historically, most biomedical and clinical trial research was conducted primarily on males because of concerns regarding greater physiological variability in females.