Inequalities in the Evaluation of Male Versus Female Athletes in Sports Medicine Research: A Systematic Review

• Published in: The American journal of sports medicine 2023-10, Vol.51 (12), p.3335-3342
• Main Authors: Paul, Ryan W., Sonnier, John Hayden, Johnson, Emma E., Hall, Anya T., Osman, Alim, Connors, Gregory M., Freedman, Kevin B., Bishop, Meghan E.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Athletes; Australian football; Medicine; Rugby; Softball; Sports medicine; Systematic review
• ISSN: 0363-5465; 1552-3365
• DOI: 10.1177/03635465221131281

Background: Female sports participation continues to rise; however, inequalities between male and female athletes still exist in many areas and may extend into medical research. Purpose: The purpose of this study was to (1) compare the number of published studies evaluating male versus female athletes in various sports and (2) identify which co-ed sports currently underrepresent female athletes in the sports medicine literature. Study Design: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: All nonreview research studies published from 2017 to 2021 in 6 top sports medicine journals were considered for inclusion. Sports medicine studies were included that isolated athletes, reported study outcomes specific to male and/or female patients, provided study outcomes for specific sports, and evaluated ≤3 different sports. The total number of studies reporting on male and/or female athletes were compared for all sports, and odds ratios (ORs) were calculated. Comparisons of study design, level of sports participation, outcomes assessed, and study quality were also made according to participant sex. Results: Overall, 669 studies were included the systematic review. Most studies isolated male athletes (70.7%), while 8.8% isolated female athletes and 20.5% included male and female athletes. Female athletes were more frequently studied in softball and volleyball, while male athletes were more commonly researched in baseball, soccer, American football, basketball, rugby, hockey, and Australian football. Notably, male athletes were largely favored in baseball/softball (91% vs 5%; OR = 18.2), rugby (72% vs 5%; OR = 14.4), soccer (65% vs 15%; OR = 4.3), and basketball (58% vs 18%; OR = 3.2). Conclusion: Sports medicine research has favored the evaluation of male athletes in most sports, including the majority of co-ed sports. Potential reasons for this inequality of research evaluation include availability of public data and database data, financial and promotional incentives, a high percentage of male sports medicine clinicians and researchers, and sex biases in sport. While the causes of these differences are multifaceted, researchers should consider both sexes for study inclusion whenever possible, and journals should support a more balanced representation of research publications regarding male and female athletes.