ArticleSystematic reviews2018
Sex/gender reporting and analysis in Campbell and Cochrane systematic reviews: a cross-sectional methods study.
Article in Systematic reviews, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03546114 (Does Gender Matter? Patient Preference in an Italian Osteopathic Clinical Setting), which is not on this map. Cited by 16 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Does Gender Matter? Patient Preference in an Italian Osteopathic Clinical Setting
Who cites it
16 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Gender innovation in the scientific evidence on interventions to reduce health inequalities in Europe: an umbrella review.International journal for equity in health · 2026Pooled it
- How effects on health equity are assessed in systematic reviews of interventions.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2022Pooled it
- A sex/gender perspective on interventions to promote children's and adolescents' overall physical activity: results from genEffects systematic review.BMC pediatrics · 2020Pooled it
- The evidence gap on gendered impacts of performance-based financing among family physicians for chronic disease care: a systematic review reanalysis in contexts of single-payer universal coverage.Human resources for health · 2020Pooled it
- Sex- and Gender-Based Analysis in Cannabis Treatment Outcomes: A Systematic Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Pooled it
- Sex-related differences in cardiovascular pharmacotherapy: fiction or fact? Why can't we see the evidence?European heart journal. Cardiovascular pharmacotherapy · 2025Review
- Intersectionality of the Gender Wage Gap Among Healthcare Professionals: A Scoping Review.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Sex and gender reporting in RCTs of internet and mobile-based interventions for depression and anxiety in chronic conditions: A secondary analysis of a systematic review.PLOS mental health · 2024Article
- Article
- Consideration of Sex, Gender, or Age on Outcomes of Digital Technologies for Treatment and Monitoring of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: Overview of Systematic Reviews.Journal of medical Internet research · 2023Review
- Lack of sex-related analysis and reporting in Cochrane Reviews: a cross-sectional study.Systematic reviews · 2022Article
- The Influence of Sex, Gender, or Age on Outcomes of Digital Technologies for Treatment and Monitoring of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: Protocol for an Overview of Systematic Reviews.JMIR research protocols · 2022Article
- Sex and gender disparities in patients with advanced gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma: data from the AGAMENON-SEOM registry.ESMO open · 2022Article
- Current Issues on Research Conducted to Improve Women's Health.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Healthcare Service Use for Mood and Anxiety Disorders Following Acute Myocardial Infarction: A Cohort Study of the Role of Neighbourhood Socioenvironmental Characteristics in a Largely Rural Population.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Article
- Sex- and Gender-specific Analysis in Orthopaedic Studies.Clinical orthopaedics and related research · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe importance of sex and gender considerations in research is being increasingly recognized. Evidence indicates that sex and gender can influence intervention effectiveness. We assessed the extent to which sex/gender is reported and analyzed in Campbell and Cochrane systematic reviews.
methodsWe screened all the systematic reviews in the Campbell Library (n = 137) and a sample of systematic reviews from 2016 to 2017 in the Cochrane Library (n = 674). We documented the frequency of sex/gender terms used in each section of the reviews.
resultsWe excluded 5 Cochrane reviews because they were withdrawn or published and updated within the same time period as well as 4 Campbell reviews and 114 Cochrane reviews which only included studies focused on a single sex. Our analysis includes 133 Campbell reviews and 555 Cochrane reviews. We assessed reporting of sex/gender considerations for each section of the systematic review (Abstract, Background, Methods, Results, Discussion). In the methods section, 83% of Cochrane reviews (95% CI 80-86%) and 51% of Campbell reviews (95% CI 42-59%) reported on sex/gender. In the results section, less than 30% of reviews reported on sex/gender. Of these, 37% (95% CI 29-45%) of Campbell and 75% (95% CI 68-82%) of Cochrane reviews provided a descriptive report of sex/gender and 63% (95% CI 55-71%) of Campbell reviews and 25% (95% CI 18-32%) of Cochrane reviews reported analytic approaches for exploring sex/gender, such as subgroup analyses, exploring heterogeneity, or presenting disaggregated data by sex/gender.
conclusionOur study indicates that sex/gender reporting in Campbell and Cochrane reviews is inadequate.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.