ArticleBMC health services research2019
Consideration of sex and gender in Cochrane reviews of interventions for preventing healthcare-associated infections: a methodology study.
Article in BMC health services research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 29 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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
- Sex as a prognostic factor for mortality in adults with acute symptomatic pulmonary embolism.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025Pooled it
- How effects on health equity are assessed in systematic reviews of interventions.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2022Pooled it
- Sex and gender considerations in reporting guidelines for health research: a systematic review.Biology of sex differences · 2021Pooled it
- Sex as a prognostic factor for mortality in critically ill adults with sepsis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMJ open · 2021Pooled it
- Risk and outcomes of healthcare-associated infections in three hospitals in Bobo Dioulasso, Burkina Faso, 2022: A longitudinal study.PloS one · 2025Article
- 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
- Total delay and associated factors among tuberculosis patients in Jimma Zone, Southwest Ethiopia.PloS one · 2023Article
- Lack of sex-related analysis and reporting in Cochrane Reviews: a cross-sectional study.Systematic reviews · 2022Article
- Lack of attention to sex and gender in periodontitis-related randomized clinical trials: A meta-research study.Journal of clinical periodontology · 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
- 3Journal of preventive medicine and hygiene · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundHealthcare-associated infections (HAIs) are common and increase morbidity, mortality, and healthcare costs. Their control continues to be an unresolved issue worldwide. HAIs epidemiology shows sex/gender differences. Thus the lack of consideration of sex/gender in Cochrane reviews will limit their applicability and capacity to support informed decisions. This study aims to describe the extent to which Cochrane reviews of interventions for preventing HAIs consider sex and gender.
methodsMethodology study appraising Cochrane reviews of interventions to prevent HAIs. SEARCH
methodsCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from 1995 (launch of the journal) to 31 December 2016. Two authors independently extracted data with EPPI-Reviewer 4 software, and independently appraised the sex/gender content of the reviews with the Sex and Gender Appraisal Tool for Systematic Reviews (SGAT-SR).
resultsThis study included 113 reviews assessing the effects of interventions for preventing HAIs. 100 reviews (88%) used at least one sex or gender-related term. The terminology used was heterogeneous, being "sex" the term used in more reviews (51%). No review defined neither sex nor gender. Thus we could not assess the definitions provided. Consideration of sex and gender was practically absent in the included reviews; in fact, no review met all the applicable items of the SGAT-SR, and 51 reviews (50%) fulfilled no item. No review provided a complete description of the sex and the gender of the samples of the included studies. Only ten reviews (10%) planned to perform sex- and gender-based analysis and only three (3%) could complete the analysis. The method chosen was always the subgroup analysis based on sex (one review) or gender (two reviews). Three reviews (3%) considered sex or gender-related findings in the conclusions.
conclusionConsideration of sex and gender in Cochrane reviews of interventions for preventing HAIs was practically absent. This lack of attention to sex and gender reduces the quality of Cochrane reviews, and their applicability for all people: women and men, boys and girls, and people of diverse gender identities. Cochrane should attempt to address the shortfalls detected.
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.