Shat terd


The hidden half of domestic violence

How to have eternal life


The journal, Statistics in Medicine, has just published an important article that compares the number of single-sex studies done for men and women, and compares that number with the disease burden faced by both sexes. The study, "Estimation of Gender Bias in Clinical Trials" looks at articles published from 1966-1995. 

The article, written by Johns Hopkins researchers Curtis Meinert and Adele Gilpin, concludes that while women were underrepresented in heart disease trials, men were underrepresented both in cancer and in other trials. 

The article further abolishes the myth that women were "routinely excluded" from medical research. 

The article is published in the current issue of Statistics in Medicine. 

Following is the abstract: 

Estimation of Gender Bias in Clinical Trials 

The perception is that the clinical trials enterprise has been biased in favour of males by devoting a disproportionate effort to males and to the diseases and conditions afflicting them - a perception reinforced by a few high profile  male-only heart trials undertaken in the 1970s and 1980s. The perception was sufficient to cause the U.S.A. Congress to enact legislation to require that a clinical trial is designed and carried out in a manner sufficient to provide for a  valid analysis of whether the variables being studied in the trial affect women differently than other subjects in  the trial. Observed effort differentials are based on counts of single-gender trials indexed in MEDLINE and published in U.S. journals. Differentials are compared to those expected using male-female differentials in mortality and years of potential life loss due to mortality before age 65 to estimate effort bias. The ratios of female-only to male-only published trials were 0.53, 0.89 and 0.95 for the decades of 1966-1975, 1976-1985 and 1986-1995, respectively. The expected ratios, if single-gender trials were done in proportion to female-male mortality differentials, would be 0.57, 0.56 and 0.57, respectively. The differences in observed versus expected female to male ratios correspond to a slight excess of male-only trials in the decade of 1966-1975 and to sizeable excesses in female-only trials in the decades of  1976-1985 and 1986-1995. The results do not support the perception that women have been understudied relative to males in  clinical trials. Most differentials favour females, whether based on mortality or years of potential life loss due to mortality before age 65 years. Copyright 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.


(please click above to vote for this site)

JUNE is Domestic Violence Against Men Awareness Month

Contact us

Interactive Groups


Ken's Page

Jerusalem Daily/Shattered Men

 Read  Guest Book  Sign

Shattered Men Group