National Academies Press: OpenBook
« Previous: CLOSING REMARKS
Suggested Citation:"REFERENCES." Institute of Medicine. 2012. Sex-Specific Reporting of Scientific Research: A Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13307.
×

REFERENCES

Bairey Merz, C. N., L. J. Shaw, S. E. Reis, V. Bittner, S. F. Kelsey, M. Olson, B. D. Johnson, C. J. Pepine, S. Mankad, B. L. Sharaf, W. J. Rogers, G. M. Pohost, A. Lerman, A. A. Quyyumi, and G. Sopko. 2006. Insights from the NHLBI-sponsored Women’s Ischemia Syndrome Evaluation (WISE) study: Part II: Gender differences in presentation, diagnosis, and outcome with regard to gender-based pathophysiology of atherosclerosis and macrovascular and microvascular coronary disease. J Am Coll Cardiol 47(3 Suppl):S21-29.

Becker, J. B., A. P. Arnold, K. J. Berkley, J. D. Blaustein, L. A. Eckel, E. Hampson, J. P. Herman, S. Marts, W. Sadee, M. Steiner, J. Taylor, and E. Young. 2005. Strategies and methods for research on sex differences in brain and behavior. Endocrinology 146(4):1650-1673.

Becker, J. B., K. J. Berkley, N. Geary, E. Hampson, J. P. Herman, and E. Young, Eds. 2008. Sex Differences in the Brain: From Genes to Behavior. New York: Oxford University Press, Inc.

Beery, A. K., and I. Zucker. 2011. Sex bias in neuroscience and biomedical research. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 35(3):565-572.

Berry, D. A. 2005. Introduction to Bayesian methods III: Use and interpretation of Bayesian tools in design and analysis. Clin Trials 2(4):295-300; discussion 301-304, 364-378.

Canto, J. G., R. J. Goldberg, M. M. Hand, R. O. Bonow, G. Sopko, C. J. Pepine, and T. Long. 2007. Symptom presentation of women with acute coronary syndromes: Myth vs reality. Arch Intern Med 167(22):2405-2413.

Clayton, J. Presentation at Sex-Specific Reporting of Scientific Research: A Workshop. Institute of Medicine, Washington, DC.

FDA (U.S. Food and Drug Administration). 2010. Guidance for the Use of Bayesian Statistics in Medical Device Clinical Trials. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/GuidanceDocuments/UCM071121.pdf (accessed November 14, 2011).

Freedman, L. S., R. Simon, M. A. Foulkes, L. Friedman, N. L. Geller, D. J. Gordon, and R. Mowery. 1995. Inclusion of women and minorities in clinical trials and the NIH Revitalization Act of 1993—The perspective of NIH clinical trialists. Control Clin Trials 16(5):277-285; discussion 286-289, 293-309.

Gandhi, M., N. Ameli, P. Bacchetti, G. B. Sharp, A. L. French, M. Young, S. J. Gange, K. Anastos, S. Holman, A. Levine, and R. M. Greenblatt. 2005. Eligibility criteria for HIV clinical trials and generalizability of results: the gap between published reports and study protocols. AIDS 19(16):1885-1896.

GAO (U.S. General Accounting Office). 1992. Women’s Health: FDA Needs to Ensure More Study of Gender Differences in Prescription Drug Testing. GAO/HRD-93-17. http://archive.gao.gov/d35t11/147861.pdf (accessed November 2, 2011).

Gigerenzer, G. 2002. Calculated Risks: How to Know When Numbers Deceive You. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Suggested Citation:"REFERENCES." Institute of Medicine. 2012. Sex-Specific Reporting of Scientific Research: A Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13307.
×

 

Goldkind, S. F., L. Sahin, and B. Gallauresi. 2010. Enrolling pregnant women in research—lessons from the H1N1 influenza pandemic. N Engl J Med 362(24):2241-2243.

Goodman, S. N. 1999. Toward evidence-based medical statistics. 2: The Bayes factor. Ann Intern Med 130(12):1005-1013.

Gurwitz, J. H., N. F. Col, and J. Avorn. 1992. The exclusion of the elderly and women from clinical trials in acute myocardial infarction. JAMA 268(11):1417-1422.

IOM (Institute of Medicine). 2010. Women’s Health Research: Progress, Pitfalls, and Promise. Washington DC: The National Academies Press.

IOM. 2011. Sex Differences and Implications for Translational Neuroscience Research: Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

ISIS-2 (Second International Study of Infarct Survival) Collaborative Group. 1988. Randomised trial of intravenous streptokinase, oral aspirin, both, or neither among 17,187 cases of suspected acute myocardial infarction: ISIS-2. Lancet 2(8607):349-360.

Jagsi, R., A. R. Motomura, S. Amarnath, A. Jankovic, N. Sheets, and P. A. Ubel. 2009. Under-representation of women in high-impact published clinical cancer research. Cancer 115(14):3293-3301.

Kahn, S. E., B. Zinman, J. M. Lachin, S. M. Haffner, W. H. Herman, R. R. Holman, B. G. Kravitz, D. Yu, M. A. Heise, R. P. Aftring, and G. Viberti. 2008. Rosiglitazone-associated fractures in type 2 diabetes: An analysis from A Diabetes Outcome Progression Trial (ADOPT). Diabetes Care 31(5):845-851.

Kent, D., and R. Hayward. 2007a. When averages hide individual differences in clinical trials. American Scientist 95(1):60-68.

Kent, D. M., and R. A. Hayward. 2007b. Limitations of applying summary results of clinical trials to individual patients: The need for risk stratification. JAMA 298(10):1209-1212.

Kim, E. S., and V. Menon. 2009. Status of women in cardiovascular clinical trials. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol 29(3):279-283.

Mittelstrass, K., J. S. Ried, Z. Yu, J. Krumsiek, C. Gieger, C. Prehn, W. Roemisch-Margl, A. Polonikov, A. Peters, F. J. Theis, T. Meitinger, F. Kronenberg, S. Weidinger, H. E. Wichmann, K. Suhre, R. Wang-Sattler, J. Adamski, and T. Illig. 2011. Discovery of sexual dimorphisms in metabolic and genetic biomarkers. PLoS Genet 7(8):e1002215.

NIH (National Institutes of Health). 2011. Monitoring Adherence to the NIH Policy on the Inclusion of Women and Minorities as Subjects in Clinical Research: Comprehensive Report: Tracking of Human Subjects Research As Reported in Fiscal Year 2009 and Fiscal Year 2010. Washington, DC: HHS and NIH.

Putting gender on the agenda. 2010. Nature 465(7299):665.

Sleight, P. 2000. Debate: Subgroup analyses in clinical trials: Fun to look at—but don’t believe them! Curr Control Trials Cardiovasc Med 1(1):25-27.

Suggested Citation:"REFERENCES." Institute of Medicine. 2012. Sex-Specific Reporting of Scientific Research: A Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13307.
×

 

Wald, C., and C. Wu. 2010. Biomedical research. Of mice and women: The bias in animal models. Science 327(5973):1571-1572.

Wong, J. B. 2011. What are my chances? Presentation at Sex-Specific Reporting of Scientific Research: A Workshop. Institute of Medicine, Washington, DC.

Zucker, I., and A. K. Beery. 2010. Males still dominate animal studies. Nature 465(7299):690.

Suggested Citation:"REFERENCES." Institute of Medicine. 2012. Sex-Specific Reporting of Scientific Research: A Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13307.
×

 

This page is blank.

Suggested Citation:"REFERENCES." Institute of Medicine. 2012. Sex-Specific Reporting of Scientific Research: A Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13307.
×
Page 41
Suggested Citation:"REFERENCES." Institute of Medicine. 2012. Sex-Specific Reporting of Scientific Research: A Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13307.
×
Page 42
Suggested Citation:"REFERENCES." Institute of Medicine. 2012. Sex-Specific Reporting of Scientific Research: A Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13307.
×
Page 43
Suggested Citation:"REFERENCES." Institute of Medicine. 2012. Sex-Specific Reporting of Scientific Research: A Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13307.
×
Page 44
Next: Appendix A: Workshop Agenda »
Sex-Specific Reporting of Scientific Research: A Workshop Summary Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $21.00 Buy Ebook | $16.99
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

The number of women participating in clinical trials has increased during the last two decades, but women are still underrepresented in clinical trials in general. Some of the overall increase can be attributed to the greater number of women-only trials (of therapies for diseases that affect only women). Even when women are included in clinical trials, the results are often not analyzed separately by sex.

On August 30, 2011, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) Board on Population Health and Public Health Practice hosted the workshop Sex-Specific Reporting of Scientific Research. The workshop explored the need for sex-specific reporting of scientific results; potential barriers and unintended consequences of sex-specific reporting of scientific results; experiences of journals that have implemented sex-specific requirements, including the challenges and benefits of such editorial policies; and steps to facilitate the reporting of sex-specific results. Presenters and participants included current and former editors of scientific journals, researchers, and scientists and policymakers from government, industry, and nonprofit organizations. Presentations and discussions highlighted the importance to both women and men of having sex-specific data, the problems with sample size and financial constraints for conducting the research, the appropriateness of sex-specific analyses, and the limitations of journal policies to change experimental designs.

Sex-Specific Reporting of Scientific Research summarizes the presentations and discussions by the expert panelists during the IOM workshop. The workshop's first session focused on why sex-specific reporting is important. Panelists highlighted historical and current events that have hindered or helped to advance the study of women. In the next session, panelists in academe discussed the challenges of collecting, analyzing, and reporting sex-specific data from the researcher's perspective. That was followed by two panels of leading journal editors who shared their experiences in developing and implementing editorial policies and the implications of sex-specific reporting policies for journals.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    Switch between the Original Pages, where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  9. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!