Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40143925›Full record

ReviewLancet regional health. Americas2025

Barriers and solutions in women's health research and clinical care: a call to action.

Judith G Regensteiner, Melissa McNeil, Stephanie S Faubion, C Noel Bairey-Merz, Martha Gulati, Hadine Joffe, Rita F Redberg, Stacey E Rosen, Jane Eb Reusch, Wendy Klein

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Lancet regional health. Americas, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Judith G RegensteinerDivisions of General Internal Medicine and Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Ludeman Family Center for Women's Health Research, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO, USA.
Melissa McNeilThe Warren Alpert School of Medicine, Brown University Rhode Island Hospital, Providence, RI, USA.
Stephanie S FaubionWomen's Health Research Center, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
C Noel Bairey-MerzBarbra Streisand Women's Heart Center, Smidt Heart Institute, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Martha GulatiBarbra Streisand Women's Heart Center, Smidt Heart Institute, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Hadine JoffeDepartment of Psychiatry, Connors Center for Women's Health and Gender Biology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Rita F RedbergSchool of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, USA.
Stacey E RosenKatz Institute for Women's Health at Northwell, New Hyde Park, NY, USA.
Jane Eb ReuschDivisions of General Internal Medicine and Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Ludeman Family Center for Women's Health Research, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO, USA.
Wendy KleinVirginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine, Richmond, VA, USA.

Funding

Role of Microvascular insulin resistance and cardiorespiratory fitness in diabetesR01DK124344 · NIDDK · UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO DENVER · PI ZHENQI LIU, JUDITH G. REGENSTEINER · 2021 to 2026
$3.5M
The Colorado Building Interdisciplinary Research Careers in Women's Health ProgramK12AR084226 · NIAMS · UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO DENVER · PI JUDITH G. REGENSTEINER, Nanette F. Santoro · 2023 to 2026
$2.5M
CSRD VA I01 CX001532NIAMS NIH HHS K12 AR084226NIDDK NIH HHS R01 DK124344
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

It is now recognized that there are significant differences between the sexes affecting prevalence, incidence, and severity over a broad range of diseases, although the extent of the differences is not fully elucidated. Until the early 1990s, women were excluded from most clinical trials and the limited research including women focused primarily on diseases affecting fertility and reproduction. For these reasons, the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of chronic diseases in women continue to be based primarily on historical findings in men, and sex-specific clinical guidelines are often lacking. Many illnesses, ranging from cardiovascular disease to cancer to mental health issues, for example, differ by sex in terms of prevalence and adverse effects. Research is needed to understand how medically relevant biological sex differences optimally inform sex-specific prevention, diagnosis, and treatment strategies for women and men. In this way, sex-specific clinical guidelines can be developed where warranted, using evidence-based data.

Indexed as

Clinical treatmentsGender differencesResearch focusSex differencesWomen’s health

Identifiers

PMID40143925
PMCPMC11937288

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.