Half of adults in the United States have hypertension as defined by clinical practice guidelines. Interestingly, women are generally more likely to be aware of their hypertension and have their blood pressure controlled with treatment compared with men, yet hypertension-related mortality is greater in women. This may reflect the fact that the female sex remains underrepresented in clinical and basic science studies investigating the effectiveness of therapies and the mechanisms controlling blood pressure. This Review provides an overview of the impact of the way hypertension research has explored sex as a biological variable (SABV). Emphasis is placed on epidemiological studies, hypertension clinical trials, the genetics of hypertension, sex differences in immunology and gut microbiota in hypertension, and the effect of sex on the central control of blood pressure. The goal is to offer historical perspective on SABV in hypertension, highlight recent studies that include SABV, and identify key gaps in SABV inclusion and questions that remain in the field. Through continued awareness campaigns and engagement/education at the level of funding agencies, individual investigators, and in the editorial peer review system, investigation of SABV in the field of hypertension research will ultimately lead to improved clinical outcomes.
Michael J. Ryan, John S. Clemmer, Roy O. Mathew, Jessica L. Faulkner, Erin B. Taylor, Justine M. Abais-Battad, Fiona Hollis, Jennifer C. Sullivan
Usage data is cumulative from September 2024 through April 2025.
Usage | JCI | PMC |
---|---|---|
Text version | 26,836 | 669 |
711 | 86 | |
Figure | 389 | 0 |
Table | 151 | 0 |
Citation downloads | 89 | 0 |
Totals | 28,176 | 755 |
Total Views | 28,931 |
Usage information is collected from two different sources: this site (JCI) and Pubmed Central (PMC). JCI information (compiled daily) shows human readership based on methods we employ to screen out robotic usage. PMC information (aggregated monthly) is also similarly screened of robotic usage.
Various methods are used to distinguish robotic usage. For example, Google automatically scans articles to add to its search index and identifies itself as robotic; other services might not clearly identify themselves as robotic, or they are new or unknown as robotic. Because this activity can be misinterpreted as human readership, data may be re-processed periodically to reflect an improved understanding of robotic activity. Because of these factors, readers should consider usage information illustrative but subject to change.