ReviewEuropean journal of clinical investigation2025
Integrating gender medicine into modern healthcare: Progress and barriers.
Review in European journal of clinical investigation, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Sex Differences in Presentation and Outcomes of Transthyretin Amyloid Cardiomyopathy.JACC. Advances · 2026Article
- Uncovering Sex and Gender Differences in Sarcoidosis: A Systematic Review of Current Evidence.Journal of personalized medicine · 2026Review
- When Blood Remembers Its Sex: Toward Truly Personalized Transfusion Medicine.Journal of personalized medicine · 2025Review
- Integrating gender medicine into modern healthcare: Progress and barriers.European journal of clinical investigation · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSex and gender are fundamental determinants of health, influencing disease risk, diagnosis, treatment, and outcomes across medical disciplines. While sex refers to biological characteristics, gender encompasses sociocultural dimensions, including behaviours and identities.
resultsThe field of gender medicine has evolved significantly from its roots in the women's health movement of the 1960s and 1970s, which initially sought to address reproductive rights and the systematic exclusion of women from clinical research. Over time, the focus has expanded to recognize sex- and gender-based differences in all populations, including men and gender-diverse individuals. Despite progress, persistent challenges remain. Many clinical guidelines inadequately incorporate sex and gender considerations, and women continue to be underrepresented in clinical trials, resulting in suboptimal efficacy and a higher incidence of adverse effects in women. Recent initiatives, including government-funded research programs, specialized gender medicine professorships and regulatory measures promoting equitable clinical trial participation, represent positive steps forward. However, a systematic, interdisciplinary approach is required to fully integrate gender-sensitive medicine into research, education and clinical practice. This narrative review explores the historical development of gender medicine, current advancements and remaining challenges. We highlight the need for improved research methodologies, policy changes and targeted interventions to ensure equitable healthcare. A structured action plan emphasizing regulatory support, education, industry involvement and public awareness is essential to accelerate the field's integration.
conclusionRecognising and addressing sex- and gender-sensitive health differences will lead to more personalised and effective medical care, ultimately improving health outcomes for all individuals.
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.