IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0118797.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Sex Distribution of Study Samples Reported in American Society of Biomechanics Annual Meeting Abstracts

Author

Listed:
  • Sarah Bach
  • Melissa M Morrow
  • Kristin D Zhao
  • Richard E Hughes

Abstract

Background: Study samples should be appropriately selected to maximize generalizability of results. Excluding one sex from studies of conditions that affect both sexes is problematic and has received attention as a public policy issue in the United States, resulting in legislation and recommendations made by the National Institutes of Health to address this deficiency of study designs. It is unknown to what extent biomechanical studies have inappropriately excluded one sex. The objective of this study was to provide objective data on this question. Methods: A retrospective review of random samples of abstracts presented at American Society of Biomechanics annual meetings from 1983 to 2013 was conducted to assess reporting of sex of study samples and whether the study samples were approximately balanced with respect to sex. Findings: We did not find a statistically significant increasing trend in the percentage of abstracts reporting sex over time. However, increasing trends were noted in the percentage of abstracts including both sexes (p 0.05). In 2013 the percentage of abstracts reporting studies having approximately balanced study samples was only 28%, far from the ideal level of 100%. Interpretation: While there has been modest change since 1983, there remains significant room for improvement in the reporting and composition of experimental studies reported at American Society of Biomechanics annual meetings.

Suggested Citation

  • Sarah Bach & Melissa M Morrow & Kristin D Zhao & Richard E Hughes, 2015. "Sex Distribution of Study Samples Reported in American Society of Biomechanics Annual Meeting Abstracts," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(3), pages 1-5, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0118797
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0118797
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0118797
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0118797&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0118797?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Janine A. Clayton & Francis S. Collins, 2014. "Policy: NIH to balance sex in cell and animal studies," Nature, Nature, vol. 509(7500), pages 282-283, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. April Schweinhart & Janine Austin Clayton, 2018. "Reversing the Trends toward Shorter Lives and Poorer Health for U.S. Women: A Call for Innovative Interdisciplinary Research," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(9), pages 1-14, August.
    2. Ashwin V. Kammula & Alejandro A. Schäffer & Padma Sheila Rajagopal & Razelle Kurzrock & Eytan Ruppin, 2024. "Outcome differences by sex in oncology clinical trials," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 15(1), pages 1-13, December.
    3. Jiang, Xuan, 2021. "Women in STEM: Ability, preference, and value," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(C).
    4. Jiang, Xuan, 2018. "Planting the Seeds for Success: Why Women in STEM Do Not Stick in the Field," MPRA Paper 89650, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    5. Andrew T Marshall & Angela T Liu & Niall P Murphy & Nigel T Maidment & Sean B Ostlund, 2017. "Sex-specific enhancement of palatability-driven feeding in adolescent rats," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(7), pages 1-23, July.
    6. Goulas, Sofoklis & Griselda, Silvia & Megalokonomou, Rigissa, 2020. "Comparative Advantage and Gender Gap in STEM," IZA Discussion Papers 13313, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    7. Charlotte Douglas & Valdone Maciulyte & Jasmin Zohren & Daniel M. Snell & Shantha K. Mahadevaiah & Obah A. Ojarikre & Peter J. I. Ellis & James M. A. Turner, 2021. "CRISPR-Cas9 effectors facilitate generation of single-sex litters and sex-specific phenotypes," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 12(1), pages 1-10, December.
    8. Rebecca K. Rechlin & Tallinn F. L. Splinter & Travis E. Hodges & Arianne Y. Albert & Liisa A. M. Galea, 2022. "An analysis of neuroscience and psychiatry papers published from 2009 and 2019 outlines opportunities for increasing discovery of sex differences," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 13(1), pages 1-14, December.
    9. Marek A. Motyka & Ahmed Al-Imam & Aneta Haligowska & Michał Michalak, 2022. "Helping Women Suffering from Drug Addiction: Needs, Barriers, and Challenges," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(21), pages 1-13, October.
    10. Gillian L Currie & Helena N Angel-Scott & Lesley Colvin & Fala Cramond & Kaitlyn Hair & Laila Khandoker & Jing Liao & Malcolm Macleod & Sarah K McCann & Rosie Morland & Nicki Sherratt & Robert Stewart, 2019. "Animal models of chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy: A machine-assisted systematic review and meta-analysis," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(5), pages 1-34, May.
    11. Takuji Usui & Malcolm R Macleod & Sarah K McCann & Alistair M Senior & Shinichi Nakagawa, 2021. "Meta-analysis of variation suggests that embracing variability improves both replicability and generalizability in preclinical research," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 19(5), pages 1-20, May.
    12. Lori van den Hurk & Sarah Hiltner & Sabine Oertelt-Prigione, 2022. "Operationalization and Reporting Practices in Manuscripts Addressing Gender Differences in Biomedical Research: A Cross-Sectional Bibliographical Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(21), pages 1-13, November.
    13. Laura A. B. Wilson & Susanne R. K. Zajitschek & Malgorzata Lagisz & Jeremy Mason & Hamed Haselimashhadi & Shinichi Nakagawa, 2022. "Sex differences in allometry for phenotypic traits in mice indicate that females are not scaled males," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 13(1), pages 1-12, December.
    14. Noriko Itoh & Yuichiro Itoh & Cassandra E. Meyer & Timothy Takazo Suen & Diego Cortez-Delgado & Michelle Rivera Lomeli & Sophia Wendin & Sri Sanjana Somepalli & Lisa C. Golden & Allan MacKenzie-Graham, 2023. "Estrogen receptor beta in astrocytes modulates cognitive function in mid-age female mice," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 14(1), pages 1-17, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0118797. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.