ArticleBMC medical education2026
Gender bias in the clinical reasoning steps of medical students: a critical examination.
Article in BMC medical education, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDespite growing awareness of the importance of integrating gender knowledge into medical education, gender stereotypes persist and may influence patient assessment and management. This study investigates gender inequalities in clinical reasoning among medical students to identify areas for improvement in medical education.
methodsThe study was conducted at the University of Lausanne in Spring 2021, using the Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) to assess fifth-year medical students. Students were evenly assigned to interactions with either a male or female standardised patient (SP) presenting with unintentional weight loss. Evaluation covered history taking, physical examination, and clinical management. A total of 105 students (57.1% female, 42.9% male) were assessed.
resultsResults indicate potential gender bias at various stages of clinical reasoning, with patterns depending on the gender of both the SP and the student. During history-taking, female students were less likely to ask female SPs about alcohol consumption than male SPs (56.3% vs. 78.6%, p = 0.07). Regarding occupational history, a compelling trend was also observed among male students, who asked female SPs less often (30.4% vs. 59.1%, p = 0.05), whereas female students showed more consistent rates. Additional compelling trends emerged during physical examinations: male students performed cardiac auscultation less often on female SPs (56.5% vs. 86.4%, p = 0.02). Although diagnostic hypotheses and differential diagnoses were similar, female SPs were more often prescribed laboratory tests (63.6% vs. 26.0%, p < 0.001).
conclusionsGender bias permeates multiple stages of clinical reasoning among medical students, leading to under-recognition of key health risk factors, differences in examination thoroughness, and increased prescription of laboratory tests in female patients. Addressing gender bias through sustained integration of gender into core medical education is essential for diagnostic accuracy and high-quality patient care. Specifically, systematic inquiry into occupational and alcohol histories in female patients, improved cardiovascular auscultation, and enhanced communication with male patients are needed.
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.