Abstract:Importance: Analyses of female representation in clinical studies have been limited in scope and scale.Objective: To perform a large-scale analysis of global enrollment sex bias in clinical studies.Design, Setting, and Participants: In this cross-sectional study, clinical studies from published articles from PubMed from 1966 to 2018 and records from Aggregate Analysis of ClinicalTrials.gov from 1999 to 2018 were identified. Global disease prevalence was determined for male and female patients in 11 disease categories from the Global Burden of Disease database: cardiovascular, diabetes, digestive, hepatitis (types A, B, C, and E), HIV/AIDS, kidney (chronic), mental, musculoskeletal, neoplasms, neurological, and respiratory (chronic). Machine reading algorithms were developed that extracted sex data from tables in articles and records on December 31, 2018, at an artificial intelligence research institute. Male and female participants in 43 135 articles (792 004 915 participants) and 13 165 records (12 977 103 participants) were included.Main Outcomes and Measures: Sex bias was defined as the difference between the fraction of female participants in study participants minus prevalence fraction of female participants for each disease category. A total of 1000 bootstrap estimates of sex bias were computed by resampling individual studies with replacement. Sex bias was reported as mean and 95% bootstrap confidence intervals from articles and records in each disease category over time (before or during 1993 to 2018), with studies or participants as the measurement unit.Results: There were 792 004 915 participants, including 390 470 834 female participants (49%), in articles and 12 977 103 participants, including 6 351 619 female participants (49%), in records. With studies as measurement unit, substantial female underrepresentation (sex bias ≤ -0.05) was observed in 7 of 11 disease categories, especially HIV/AIDS (mean for articles, -0.17 [95% CI, -0.18 to -0.16]), chronic kidney diseases (mean, -0.17 [95% CI, -0.17 to -0.16]), and cardiovascular diseases (mean, -0.14 [95% CI, -0.14 to -0.13]). Sex bias in articles for all categories combined was unchanged over time with studies as measurement unit (range, -0.15 [95% CI, -0.16 to -0.13] to -0.10 [95% CI, -0.14 to -0.06]), but improved from before or during 1993 (mean, -0.11 [95% CI, -0.16 to -0.05]) to 2014 to 2018 (mean, -0.05 [95% CI, -0.09 to -0.02]) with participants as the measurement unit. Larger study size was associated with greater female representation.Conclusions and Relevance: Automated extraction of the number of participants in clinical reports provides an effective alternative to manual analysis of demographic bias. Despite legal and policy initiatives to increase female representation, sex bias against female participants in clinical studies persists. Studies with more participants have greater female representation. Differences between sex bias estimates with studies vs participants as measurement unit, and between articles vs records, suggest that sex bias with both measures and data sources should be reported.

Sex and gender-based analysis and diversity metric reporting in acute care trials published in high-impact journals: a systematic review

The implementation of sex-and gender-based considerations in exercise-based randomized controlled trials in individuals with stroke: A cross-sectional study

Recruitment, retention and reporting of variables related to ethnic diversity in randomised controlled trials: an umbrella review

An opportunity for patient-centered care: Results from a secondary analysis of sex- and gender-based data in mobile health trials for chronic medical conditions

Sex and gender bias in chronic coronary syndromes research: analysis of studies used to inform the 2019 European Society of Cardiology guidelines

Trends and Rates of Reporting of Race, Ethnicity, and Social Determinants of Health in Spine Surgery Randomized Clinical Trials: A Systematic Review

Systematic review of interventions to improve gender equity in graduate medicine

Sex-based analysis of NSTEMI processes of care and outcomes by hospital: a nationwide cohort study

Global evidence of gender equity in academic health research: a scoping review

Abstract 11028: Gender Inequality in Enrollment in Late-Breaking Cardiovascular Clinical Trials

Investigating Sex Bias in Machine Learning Research: A Systematic Review in Rheumatoid Arthritis

Inclusion of sex and gender instructions to authors and SAGER guidelines recommendations across highest impact oncology journals.

Sex-Based Disparities in Acute Myocardial Infarction Treatment Patterns and Outcomes in Older Adults Hospitalized Across 6 High-Income Countries: An Analysis From the International Health Systems Research Collaborative

Sex Disparities in the Management of Acute Coronary Syndromes: Insights From the Veterans Affairs Clinical Assessment, Reporting, and Tracking Program

A scoping review of geriatric emergency medicine research transparency in diversity, equity, and inclusion reporting

Quantifying Sex Bias in Clinical Studies at Scale With Automated Data Extraction

Sex-specific presentation, care, and clinical events in individuals admitted with NSTEMI: the ACVC-EAPCI EORP NSTEMI registry of the European Society of Cardiology

Reporting of critical care trial abstracts: a comparison before and after the announcement of CONSORT guideline for abstracts

Sex as a Biological Variable in Emergency Medicine Research and Clinical Practice: A Brief Narrative Review

Established evidence-based treatment guidelines help mitigate disparities in quality of emergency care

Strategies for enhancing the representation of women in clinical trials: an evidence map