Objectives/hypothesis: Recent studies revealed sex bias in surgical research. Although many diseases exhibit sex-based clinically relevant differences, otolaryngology research has not been evaluated for sex reporting and sex-based analysis. We postulate that a similar bias is prevalent in otolaryngology literature.
Study design: Literature review.
Methods: Articles published from 2016 to 2017 in The Laryngoscope, Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, and JAMA Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery were reviewed. Articles with animal subjects, human subject cells, or commercial cell lines were included. Data collected included study type, cell/animal sex, and sex-based data analysis.
Results: One hundred forty-four basic/translational research articles were identified. Sixty-nine (47.9%) of those lacked sex reporting. Of 75 studies that reported sex, 22 (29.3%) included both sexes, and 11 (14.7%) analyzed data by sex. One hundred five (72.9%) used animal subjects, of which 54 (51.9%) lacked sex breakdown. Among animal studies, 48/105 included only one sex, and three articles analyzed data by sex. Fifty-four studies used commercial cell lines (N = 23) or human/animal subject cells (N = 31). Among cell groups, 28/54 (51.9%) were of unknown sex, and seven were single sex. Eight (14.8%) studies included data analysis by sex. Domestic studies exhibited a lower rate of sex reporting in both animal and cell studies, and a lower rate of sex-based analysis in cell studies.
Conclusions: Sex may influence outcomes significantly but is underreported and underanalyzed in basic/translational otolaryngology research. Because this research frequently lays the groundwork for clinical trials and standards of care, future research must address these sex-based discrepancies.
Level of evidence: NA Laryngoscope, 129:613-618, 2019.
Keywords: Gender bias; animals; biomedical research; cells; female; humans; male; research design/standards; sexism.
© 2018 The American Laryngological, Rhinological and Otological Society, Inc.