ArticleEuropean journal of sport science2025
Eligibility of Athletes With a Difference in Sex Development in Elite Sport: Opinions of National, Elite and World Class Athletes.
Article in European journal of sport science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
There have been limited studies allowing key stakeholders the opportunity to voice their opinions on DSD athlete participation in elite sport. The purpose of this study was to survey athletes eligible to compete in the female category regarding DSD athletes' inclusion. This study surveyed national, elite and world class athletes (n = 147) competing in the female category regarding their opinions on the eligibility of DSD athletes in elite sport. The study compared current and retired Olympic sport athletes, elite versus world class athletes and current Olympic sport versus current Olympic-recognised sport athletes. Most athletes believed that it was an unethical requirement to medicate in order to comply with eligibility regulations (67.2%). Overall, athletes did not support a separate category for DSD athletes, an opinion most strongly held for precision sports (69.5%) and a majority believed their participation in the female category was fair (54.4%, precision sports). This opinion was more commonly held by Olympic-recognised sport than current Olympic sport athletes, particularly for sports heavily reliant on physical capacity (61.1% vs. 20%). More current Olympic sport athletes believed that the eligibility of DSD athletes for the female category was unfair, compared to Olympic-recognised sport athletes. Athletes agreed that sports federations could be doing more to make sport more inclusive for DSD athletes (82.2%), with only 8.2% believing such athletes were treated fairly. After reviewing these novel results, the athletes' voice (in combination with scientific evidence) should be utilised to create appropriate policies that align with the collective values of athletes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.