Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40292986›Full record

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.

Niall Timothy Fife, Alex Lauren Shaw, Georgina Kate Stebbings, Marie Chollier, Luke Thomas Joseph Cox, Andy Neil Harvey, Alun Gwen Williams, Shane Micheal Heffernan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

8 authors.

Niall Timothy FifeFaculty of Science and Engineering, Applied Sports Science Technology and Medicine Research Centre (A-STEM), Swansea University, Swansea, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0000-2987-0809
Alex Lauren ShawFaculty of Science and Engineering, Applied Sports Science Technology and Medicine Research Centre (A-STEM), Swansea University, Swansea, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0009-6480-9240
Georgina Kate StebbingsManchester Metropolitan Institute of Sport, Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester, UK.
Marie ChollierSocial and Political Science, University of Chester, Chester, UK.
Luke Thomas Joseph CoxFaculty of Science and Engineering, Applied Sports Science Technology and Medicine Research Centre (A-STEM), Swansea University, Swansea, UK.
Andy Neil HarveyFaculty of Science and Engineering, Applied Sports Science Technology and Medicine Research Centre (A-STEM), Swansea University, Swansea, UK.
Alun Gwen WilliamsFaculty of Science and Engineering, Applied Sports Science Technology and Medicine Research Centre (A-STEM), Swansea University, Swansea, UK.
Shane Micheal HeffernanFaculty of Science and Engineering, Applied Sports Science Technology and Medicine Research Centre (A-STEM), Swansea University, Swansea, UK.

Funding

Swansea University
6 · The paper itself

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

AthletesAttitudeDisorders of Sex DevelopmentSportsAdolescentAdultFemaleHumansMaleSurveys and QuestionnairesYoung Adultcompetitionethicspolicysociology

Identifiers

PMID40292986
PMCPMC12035759

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.