Women's Health
Resources
Basic InformationLatest News
Exercise Might Make Breast Milk's Goodness Even BetterPreterm Birth Ups Mom's Long-Term Heart Disease Risk: StudyAffection, at Least for Women, May Be Rooted in GenesHormones May Explain Greater Prevalence of Alzheimer's in WomenCoronavirus Delivering a Big Economic Blow to WomenAHA News: Persistent Depression Might Increase Heart Disease Risk for Women With HIVStatins Tied to Significantly Lower Death Rate From Ovarian CancerPandemic Affecting Mental Health of Pregnant Women, New MomsClimate Change, Smog Could Mean More Preemie Babies: StudyFemale Athletes Shortchange Themselves on NutritionWomen Still Left Out of Much Medical ResearchAHA News: Pregnant Women With Heart Defects Don't Always Get This Recommended TestNot a Myth -- Contraceptives Can Cause Weight GainMeds Like Valium, Xanax Linked to Higher Risk of Ectopic PregnancyAt-Home Gene Test for Breast, Ovarian Cancers Looks EffectiveWomen Less Likely to Get Standard Heart MedicationsGood News for Menopausal Women Who Take HopsBlack and White Women Share the Same Genetic Risk for Breast Cancer'Good Bacteria' Might Help Fight a Common Gynecologic InfectionMore Evidence Sugary Drinks Harm Women's HeartsAHA News: Prenatal Supplement May Increase Blood Pressure at High DosesAHA News: How Pregnant Woman's High Blood Pressure Can Change Shape of Baby's HeartMenopause May Someday Disappear as Women Postpone Pregnancy: StudyRural Women at Higher Risk of Early Death From Heart DiseaseEven During Pandemic, Childbirth Safest in Hospital, Doctors' Group SaysDo C-Section Babies Become Heavier Adults?High-Fiber Diets May Lower Odds for Breast CancerWomen in Their 50s Can Lower Their Stroke Risk – Here's HowWhen Arteries Narrow, Chest Pain Can Come Earlier for Women Than MenRacial, Ethnic Gaps in Insurance Put Moms, Babies at Risk: StudyStatins Might Reduce Harms From Breast Cancer ChemoExpectant Moms: Take Care and Don't Panic About CoronavirusGene Tests May Guard Older Breast Cancer Patients Against Other TumorsAHA News: Changing the Way We View Women's Heart Attack SymptomsMaria Shriver Sounds the Alarm on Women and Alzheimer'sAHA News: Estrogen Therapy in Early Menopause May Help Keep Arteries ClearDon't Wait, for Your Baby's Sake: Quit Smoking Before You're PregnantFemale Firefighters Face Higher Exposure to CarcinogensNew Moms Need to Watch Out for High Blood PressureBad Sleep, Bad Diet = Bad Heart?A Woman's Guide to Skin Care During and After MenopauseAHA News: What Women Need to Know About Breast Cancer and Heart DiseaseIs High Blood Pressure in First Pregnancy a Harbinger of Heart Trouble?'Couch Potato' Lifestyle Poses Danger to Women's HeartsWomen Patients Still Missing in Heart Research2 in 3 Women Unhappy With Their Breast Size. Could That Harm Their Health?Pregnant Moms Who Smoke, Drink Put Babies at Risk of SIDS: Study2 in 3 Americans Unaware That Heart Disease Is Leading Killer of WomenEmployers Need to Do More to Help Breastfeeding Moms: SurveyStrong Support Network Is Key to Women's Cancer Recovery: Study
LinksSelf-Help Groups
Related Topics

Wellness and Personal Development
Mental Disorders

Women Still Left Out of Much Medical Research

HealthDay News
by By Serena GordonHealthDay Reporter
Updated: Jun 9th 2020

new article illustration

TUESDAY, June 9, 2020 (HealthDay News) -- Your sex matters when it comes to your health, yet women may still be an afterthought in research studies.

Despite policies and grant requirements to include females in research studies, many researchers still don't analyze their data by sex, a new study found. If researchers don't look at their results by sex, it's impossible to know if diseases, drugs or vaccines might impact each sex differently.

"Sex influences health and disease in multiple organ systems. It's not just related to the reproductive tract. By not considering by sex in research, it's a harm to women's health," said study author Nicole Woitowich.

"We need this information. Right now, we're trying to put a puzzle together and we don't have all the pieces. By including both sexes in research, we can improve the health of all people," she explained. Woitowich is the associate director of the Women's Health Research Institute at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, in Chicago.

Why does this make such a difference? Woitowich noted that in a recent study of a type of brain tumor where researchers analyzed their data by sex, they found differences in the response to treatment by sex.

Kathryn Schubert, president and CEO of the Society for Women's Health Research, said, "Women need to be included in studies. When you think about diseases that affect women and men, like cardiovascular disease, symptoms may be different by sex, treatment may be different. If you haven't thought about the differences between males and females in your research, it's almost not worth it. You have to include the other half of the population."

Schubert's organization notes that 90% of women with sleep apnea aren't diagnosed because their symptoms may differ from men's. And 80% of people with osteoporosis are women.

Erin Mulcahy Stein, executive director of Maria Shriver's Women's Alzheimer's Movement, pointed out that two-thirds of people with Alzheimer's disease are women, making it important to understand what role sex plays in that condition.

Many diseases strike women differently

"Women have at least three or four life stages that men don't have -- menstruation, pregnancy, perimenopause and menopause -- and all of these can affect how a disease develops in women. If we don't have full understanding of these stages because we've left out 51% of the population, there's a real risk there that we might miss something. We've seen it in heart disease when women were dropping dead of heart attacks because doctors thought women would have symptoms the same way men did with crushing chest pain, but that's not how women present with the disease," Stein said.

And, she explained, there are similar differences with Alzheimer's. Women performed better on tests that were used to diagnose Alzheimer's for many years, which meant they were diagnosed later. Now, those tests have been adjusted to account for those sex differences.

Historically, women were left out of research because researchers were concerned that the variability of female hormones -- due to menstruation -- might affect study results.

Woitowich said, "It was assumed that there was no difference between males and females outside of the reproductive tract, and it was just easier and cheaper to use one set of animals in research, and those tended to be male."

And, she noted that it wasn't until 2016 that basic science researchers were required to use animals of both sexes in research to get grants from the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH).

The current research included more than 700 studies from nine areas of biological research. The investigators looked at whether studies used male, female or both sexes, and whether or not they reported and analyzed the data by sex.

The good news is that more studies were including both male and female subjects -- just 28% had both males and females in 2009 compared to 49% in 2019. Despite that increase in inclusion, the researchers didn't find an increase in the number of studies that analyzed their data by sex during that time.

Only 4% of the published studies provided a reason why they didn't use both sexes or why they didn't separate the data by sex. Of those that provided a reason, many said it was to limit the influence of female hormones.

Scientists starting to break out results by sex

In some cases, researchers also failed to detail how many males or females were studied. This is a big problem if another research team is trying to replicate the study's findings, Woitowich said.

"One of the things I found most worrisome was that close to one-third of those who used both males and females didn't report the numbers of each sex. The ability to repeat studies is so important. And, if I don't have that information when I repeat the study and I get a different result, that leaves me confused," she said.

So what can be done to change this? Woitowich said the NIH took the first step in 2016 by requiring scientists to consider both sexes.

"But that's not the whole solution. In this study, the literature was all peer-reviewed. Editors of journals need to require information on sex. And, other funders besides the NIH need to make inclusion of both sexes a requirement, or if you're studying just one sex, explain why. If you are including both sexes, describe why you're not doing sex-based analysis," she said.

Woitowich said cost likely isn't a major factor because researchers can still use the same number of animals in their studies.

Of the current study, Schubert said, "It's exciting to see that there is change happening, but there's a lot more work to be done."

Schubert added, "In order to help make [sex-based research analysis] the norm, not only do universities need to ensure that sex-based research policies are being implemented, researchers need to understand that sex is an important biological variable."

Stein noted that "it's taken quite a bit of time for [women's health research] to start to catch up, but we're still not there yet. There's an increased awareness that's come from the aggressive and unapologetic drumbeat from organizations like ours that ask, 'How could we possibly know as much as we need to know about diseases like Alzheimer's if women aren't included in the research?'"

The study was published online June 9 in the journal eLife.

More information

Learn more about sex differences in health from the U.S. Office on Women's Health.




328 W. Claiborne St.
P.O. Box 964
Monroeville,
Alabama 36460
Tel: (251)575-4203
Fax:(251)575-9459


powered by centersite dot net