Ose Benjamin M, Eisenhauer Jake, Roepe Isaiah, Herda Ashley A, Vopat Bryan G, Vopat Lisa M
University of Kansas School of Medicine, Kansas City, Kansas, USA.
Department of Orthopedics and Sports Medicine, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, Kansas, USA.
Am J Sports Med. 2025 Jul;53(8):2022-2028. doi: 10.1177/03635465241278350. Epub 2025 Jan 9.
In 2014, Costello and colleagues published a sentinel paper spotlighting the large disparity of female versus male representation within sports science and sports medicine (SSSM) research.
To (1) revisit the method published by Costello et al a decade later to evaluate female representation and (2) ascertain whether study designs account for menstrual status.
Systematic Review; Level of evidence, 4.
All original and epidemiologic research of live human participants from the journals , , and the were included from January 2021 to August 2023. Number of male and female participants for each study was analyzed. A menstrual-status tiering system published by Smith et al was used to classify the consideration of female participants' menstrual status in study design.
A total of 1441 studies and 40,152,860 participants were included in this analysis. This included 17,648,509 (43.95%) female participants. The mean proportion of female participants per study was 40.22%, and 103 (7.15%) studies included only female participants compared with 268 (18.6%) male-only studies. A total of 66 (5.6%) studies included menstrual-status considerations in their study design with 7.7 (0.7%) and 5.5 (0.5%) receiving a silver or gold classification, respectively, for design considerations.
Our investigation into the representation of female athletes in SSSM research found an increase in female participation from 39% to 43.95% of total participants over the past decade. While the overall number of female participants rose in the years 2021 to 2023, there remains a significant disparity in female representation in SSSM research compared with male participants. Additionally, we found that the inclusion of menstrual status in study designs has been limited, with few studies considering this crucial variable.
2014年,科斯特洛及其同事发表了一篇具有警示意义的论文,突出了体育科学与运动医学(SSSM)研究中女性与男性代表性的巨大差异。
(1)在十年后重新审视科斯特洛等人发表的评估女性代表性的方法;(2)确定研究设计是否考虑了月经状态。
系统评价;证据等级,4级。
纳入2021年1月至2023年8月发表于《》《》和《》杂志上的所有关于人类活体参与者的原创性和流行病学研究。分析每项研究中男性和女性参与者的数量。采用史密斯等人发表的月经状态分级系统,对研究设计中对女性参与者月经状态的考虑进行分类。
本分析共纳入1441项研究和40152860名参与者。其中包括17648509名(43.95%)女性参与者。每项研究中女性参与者的平均比例为40.22%,103项(7.15%)研究仅纳入女性参与者,而仅纳入男性参与者的研究有268项(18.6%)。共有66项(5.6%)研究在其研究设计中考虑了月经状态,其中7.7项(0.7%)和5.5项(0.5%)在设计考虑方面分别获得银牌或金牌评级。
我们对体育科学与运动医学研究中女运动员代表性的调查发现,在过去十年中,女性参与者占总参与者的比例从39%上升到了43.95%。虽然2021年至2023年女性参与者的总数有所增加,但与男性参与者相比,体育科学与运动医学研究中的女性代表性仍存在显著差异。此外,我们发现研究设计中对月经状态的纳入有限,很少有研究考虑这一关键变量。