Thread by @DrJenniferReed

Thanks @EmilyRCox14 !

https://twitter.com/EmilyRCox14/status/1352386299357880320

I've re-pasted my prior comments here in one thread as it's hard to find amidst all the comments (see below)

These are key issues and happy to see such great discussions. From personal experience working w/ athletic to now #cardiacrehabilitation (~80% male attendance) populations, recruiting females is challenging. Just b/c it is tough, does not mean we should not strive for balance.

... (the sex ratio for the world population is ~equal). Issue highlighted in our recent @MSSEonline systematic review on female vs. male responses to #HIIT: journals.lww.com/acsm-msse/Abst…

Results obtained from male only studies should not be generalized to males & females (which is often the case, the physiology b/w them is vastly different) and patient care should be evidence-based for each sex. A one-size-fits-all should not continue to be the status quo.

Thoughts on how to tackle this as a community/raise awareness:

1. Funding agencies introduce or continue to require sex & gender considerations for grant applications (🙌 @CIHR).

2. Research Qs that are male vs. female specific should be specified in grants, manuscripts etc.

3. Published works with male only or female only should include the appropriate sex or gender in the title.

4. Publications which contain males & females should report results per sex &/or perform sex-based analyses. Same for gender.

5. Even if underpowered, effect sizes etc. could be provided in supplementary material for future studies, grants etc.

6. Would like to hear others' thoughts on how we can do this better.

@threadreaderapp unroll please