Cited by 87Sex and Gender in HealthcareDiversity and Career in MedicineCoronary Interventions and Diagnostics

Gender Bias in Studies for Food and Drug Administration Premarket Approval of Cardiovascular Devices

Open access
Dhruva, Sanket S., Bero, Lisa A., Redberg, Rita F.·2011·Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes

Abstract

Background—: Cardiovascular devices can have different safety and effectiveness profiles in men and women. The type and quality of sex-specific data reviewed by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) before approval of these devices are unknown. Methods and Results—: We performed a systematic review of the demographics, comments on gender bias, and analysis of results by sex for 78 high-risk cardiovascular devices that received premarket approval by the FDA between 2000 and 2007. FDA summaries of evidence did not report sex of enrollees in 34 (28%) of 123 studies. For studies reporting sex distribution, the study populations were, on average, 67% men. There was no increase in the enrollment of women over time. Explanations for the relatively low percentage of women often stated that the trials reflected either underlying disease distribution or referral rates for similar procedures or that the sex distribution reflected similar or previous trials. Forty-one percent of studies included a gender bias comment or analysis, and 12 (26%) of 47 of these analyses identified some difference in device safety or effectiveness by sex. Conclusions—: There is a lack of sex-specific safety and effectiveness data for high-risk cardiovascular devices before FDA approval. The justifications for this lack of evidence may perpetuate the status quo. More rigorous FDA requirements for sex-specific data before device approval could present an opportunity to improve cardiovascular outcomes.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1161/circoutcomes.110.958215

Cites

35 of 35 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Department of Health and Human Services. Office of Device Evaluation Annual Report for Fiscal Year 1994. Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services; 1994:26.
  2. Sex differences in the cardiovascular device trials; public workshop. Fed Regist. 2008;73(229):72063-72064. http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/ E8 -28169.htm. Accessed June 25, 2010.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Dhruva, S. S., Bero, L. A., & Redberg, R. F.
Affiliations
University of California, San Francisco (US)
Venue
Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes
Published
2011-03
Volume
4
Issue
2
Pages
165-171
ISSN
  • 1941-7705 (ISSN-L)
  • 1941-7713
OpenAlex
W2117344524
Cited by
87
References
35
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 13
FWCI
8.49
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Circulation Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Centre International de Recherche sur le Cancer
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Sex and Gender in Healthcare
  • Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Diversity and Career in Medicine
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Coronary Interventions and Diagnostics
Keywords
gender bias, sex differences, cardiovascular devices, FDA premarket approval, women in clinical trials, device safety and efficacy, sex-stratified analysis
MeSH terms
Cardiovascular Diseases, Clinical Trials as Topic, Female, Humans, Male, Prejudice, United States, United States Food and Drug Administration, Treatment Outcome, Device Approval, Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy Devices

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review