Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19419579›Full record

ArticleInternational journal for equity in health2009

Better science with sex and gender: Facilitating the use of a sex and gender-based analysis in health research.

Joy L Johnson, Lorraine Greaves, Robin Repta

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in International journal for equity in health, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 253 papers, 13 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
253citing papers in PubMed, 13 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

253 citing papers in PubMed, 13 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Sex differences in thromboprophylaxis of the critically ill: a secondary analysis of a randomized trial.Canadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie · 2023
    Trial
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

193 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Joy L JohnsonNEXUS, School of Nursing, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada. joy.johnson@nursing.ubc.ca.
Lorraine Greaves
Robin Repta

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Much work has been done to promote sex and gender-based analyses in health research and to think critically about the influence of sex and gender on health behaviours and outcomes. However, despite this increased attention on sex and gender, there remain obstacles to effectively applying and measuring these concepts in health research. Some health researchers continue to ignore the concepts of sex and gender or incorrectly conflate their meanings. We report on a primer that was developed by the authors to help researchers understand and use the concepts of sex and gender in their work. We provide detailed definitions of sex and gender, discuss a sex and gender-based analysis (SGBA), and suggest three approaches for incorporating sex and gender in health research at various stages of the research process. We discuss our knowledge translation process and share some of the challenges we faced in disseminating our primer with key stakeholders. In conclusion, we stress the need for continued attention to sex and gender in health research.

Identifiers

PMID19419579
PMCPMC2689237

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.