English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Over the past decade, the scientific community has begun to recognize the importance of biological sex differences in disease pathology, diagnosis, prevention, and treatment; however, the practice of sex-specific analysis and reporting is not integrated as standard practice by either our federal health agencies or by major medical journals. Despite the reforms of 20 years ago and the general inclusion of women in drug clinical trials, we have yet to see data routinely analyzed and reported by sex. Major journals are not requiring it, and large, publicly available datasets, such as ClinicalTrials.gov , are not systematically collecting and pointing to it. However, federal health databases and medical journals have the potential to impact progress in sex-specific analysis and reporting. We conducted a search on ClinicalTrials.gov for phase III device clinical trials and assessed their practice of sex differences evaluation. Reporting of clinical trial results by sex will maximize scientific value of research investments, significantly impact clinical decision-making, and transform medical care.

Analysis and Reporting of Sex Differences in Phase III Medical Device Clinical Trials—How Are We Doing?