Sex bias in rhinology research

BACKGROUND: Analysis of general surgery literature has revealed noteworthy sex bias and underreporting. Our objective was to determine the prevalence of sex bias and underreporting in rhinology. METHODS: All articles in 2016 issues of Rhinology, the American Journal of Rhinology and Allergy (AJRA), and the International Forum of Allergy and Rhinology (IFAR) were reviewed. Of 369 articles, 248 met inclusion criteria. Excluded studies were cadaveric, meta-analysis/review, and editorial. Data collected included study type, demographics, and sex-based statistical analysis. RESULTS: There were 202 clinical and 46 basic science/translational studies. From 188 of 202 clinical studies with known sex, 1 included participants of a single sex. Sex matching >50% (SM₅₀ ) was found in 81.9%, and 55.9% performed sex-based statistical analysis. Domestic clinical studies performed sex-based analysis more frequently than international (54.9% vs 44.4%) and exhibited a higher rate of SM₅₀ (84.5% vs 80.3%), though these differences were not statistically significant. For basic/translational studies, 54.5% (24/44) provided sex breakdown. Among these, 29.2% included 1 sex, and 8.3% performed sex-based analysis. Of 10 using animals, 70.0% utilized 1 sex. The remaining 30.0% did not report sex. None of 4 cell line studies reported cell sex. Less than half (46.2%) of domestic and 56.3% of international studies reported sex breakdown; 7.7% of domestic and 3.0% of international studies performed sex-based analysis. CONCLUSION: Although sex may impact outcomes, research without sex reporting and analysis is prevalent, particularly among basic science/translational studies. Future research must account for sex in demographics and analysis to best inform evidence-based clinical guidelines.