Abstract:Objective There is a well-documented sex disparity in clinical research worldwide. Historically, most studies were conducted predominantly on male participants. This raises concerns about the generalisability and extrapolability of the findings to female patients, who exhibit different physiological and pharmacological responses.The present study aimed to investigate whether participation willingness in prospective clinical trials, having no sex-specific restrictions on inclusion, was disparate for both sexes. Design and method This observational retrospective study utilised prospectively collected screening logs of clinical trials conducted in the Department of Anaesthesiology, Amsterdam UMC, over a 5-year period from 1 January 2019 to 31 December 2023. The Institutional Review Board of the Amsterdam UMC, situated at AMC, verified on 15 March 2023 that this study did not fall within the scope of the Medical Research involving Human Subjects Act (W23_111#23.136).The study population included adult patients of both sexes who were approached for participation in prospective interventional and observational clinical trials. Importantly, only clinical trials were included where both sexes had equal opportunity to participate, with no other sex-specific restrictions. To ensure data integrity, any patients who were approached for multiple trials were included only once, to avoid double-counting of individuals in the final analysis. Results and conclusions The preliminary data analysis included a total of 5 145 approached patients, of whom 3 995 (78%) were willing to participate in a study and 1 150 (22%) refused study participation. The study population had a median age of 62 years with a range from 18 to 96 years.Of the 5 145 patients approached, 2 509 (49%) were male, and 2 636 (51%) were female.However, when examining participation rates by sex, 2 018 (80%) of the males approached were willing to take part in a study, while only 1 977 (75%) of the females approached were inclined to do so. The difference in participation rates between males and females was statistically significant (p<.001).This study showed that when no sex-specific restrictions are placed on participation, the sexes were approached almost equally. However, when investigating effective participation rates by sex, a statistically significant difference is seen, where males participate more often, compared to females.It is important to understand the underlying factors that contribute to this observed sex disparity.Researchers should strive to ensure that the representation of males and females in clinical trials is proportional to the prevalence of the disease or condition being studied, in order to enhance the applicability of the research findings to the diverse patient population.

Sex differences in perceived risks, distrust, and willingness to participate in clinical trials: a randomized study of cardiovascular prevention trials

Women and willingness to participate in clinical trials: results from a hypothetical randomized control trial

Sex, Permanent Drug Discontinuation, and Study Retention in Clinical Trials

Race, medical researcher distrust, perceived harm, and willingness to participate in cardiovascular prevention trials

Countering sex and gender bias in cardiovascular research requires more than equal recruitment and sex disaggregated analyses

Sex Differences in Demographics, Risk Factors, Presentation, and Noninvasive Testing in Stable Outpatients With Suspected Coronary Artery Disease: Insights From the PROMISE Trial

Equal Opportunity, Unequal Participation: Investigating Sex Disparities In Clinical Trials

Negative selection bias for women inclusion in a clinical trial

SEX AND PERMANENT DRUG DISCONTINUATION IN CLINICAL TRIALS: INSIGHTS FROM THE TIMI TRIALS

Sex Differences in Revascularization, Treatment Goals, and Outcomes of Patients With Chronic Coronary Disease: Insights From the ISCHEMIA Trial

[Patients' Predisposition to Participate in Clinical Trials at Hospital: A Cross-Sectional Study]

Sex Differences in the Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Diseases in a Dutch Primary Care Setting

Gender differences in cholesterol-lowering medication prescribing in peripheral artery disease.

Sex Differences in Fractional Flow Reserve– or Intravascular Ultrasound–Guided Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

Sex Differences in Ischemic and Bleeding Outcomes in Patients With Non-ST-Segment-Elevation Acute Coronary Syndrome Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Insights From the TAO Trial

Female participation, and sex-specific reporting practices, in polypill randomised controlled trials in the prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease: a secondary analysis of a systematic review

Sex differences in risk factor management of coronary heart disease across three regions

Gender bias in cardiovascular testing persists after adjustment for presenting characteristics and cardiac risk

Patient distrust in pharmaceutical companies: an explanation for women under-representation in respiratory clinical trials?

Sex‐based differences in bleeding and long term adverse events after percutaneous coronary intervention for acute myocardial infarction: Three year results from the HORIZONS‐AMI trial

Outcomes in Women Vs. Men after Non-ST-Elevation Acute Coronary Syndromes: Insights from the TIMI Trials.