Kiera Liblik, MD, MSc, highlights sex and gender reporting lags in urologic research

In the following interview, recorded at the 2026 Desai Sethi Urology Institute Urology on the Beach meeting in Miami, Florida, Kiera Liblik, MD, MSc, shared the background and key findings from the study, “Sex and Gender in Urological Research.” Liblik is a second-year urology resident at Queens University in Kingston, Ontario, Canada.

Liblik began by discussing the historical factors that have contributed to the limited integration of sex- and gender-based analyses in urologic research. She noted that only in the past few decades has the medical community more fully recognized male and female patients as distinct biological entities, influenced by hormonal, anatomical, and social factors that can shape disease presentation and outcomes. In oncology and other areas of urology, these differences were not always well understood or systematically studied.

Liblik also highlighted a pivotal regulatory barrier: a 1977 FDA guideline that barred women of childbearing potential from participating in early-phase clinical trials, a policy that remained in place until the early 1990s. Although intended as a protective measure, this exclusion created a significant gap in female representation in clinical research, contributing to the ongoing need to “catch up” in sex- and gender-informed analyses.

In her study, Liblik and colleagues evaluated 1,700 observational and interventional urologic studies published between 2019 and 2023, applying the Sex and Gender Equity in Research (SAGER) guidelines checklist to assess reporting practices. Excluding sex-specific studies, they focused on research in which subgroup analyses by sex or gender would be appropriate.

They found that fewer than half of the studies used sex and gender terminology correctly, and less than 20% met established checklist criteria for adequate sex- and gender-based analysis. Notably, 8% of studies investigating conditions relevant to both male and female patients failed to report the distribution of participants by sex. Liblik emphasized that inconsistent terminology, even within the same manuscript, limits the ability to aggregate data effectively, particularly in the era of machine learning, which depends on standardized and accurately coded variables. Overall, the findings suggest substantial room for improvement in how sex and gender are incorporated and reported in contemporary urologic research.

REFERENCE

1. Liblik K. Sex and Gender in Urological Research. Presented at: 2026 Desai Sethi Urology Institute Urology on the Beach meeting. January 16-18, 2026. Miami, Florida