ArticleJournal of personalized medicine2021
Sex as a Prognostic Factor in Systematic Reviews: Challenges and Lessons Learned.
Article in Journal of personalized medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Sex differences in the risk of bronchopulmonary dysplasia and pulmonary hypertension: a Bayesian meta-analysis.Pediatric research · 2025Pooled it
- Sex Differences in Patent Ductus Arteriosus Incidence and Response to Pharmacological Treatment in Preterm Infants: A Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis and Meta-Regression.Journal of personalized medicine · 2022Review
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
Abstract
Sex is a common baseline factor collected in studies that has the potential to be a prognostic factor (PF) in several clinical areas. In recent years, research on sex as a PF has increased; however, this influx of new studies frequently shows conflicting results across the same treatment or disease state. Thus, systematic reviews (SRs) addressing sex as a PF may help us to better understand diseases and further personalize healthcare. We wrote this article to offer insights into the challenges we encountered when conducting SRs on sex as a PF and suggestions on how to overcome these obstacles, regardless of the clinical domain. When carrying out a PF SR with sex as the index factor, it is important to keep in mind the modifications that must be made in various SR stages, such as modifying the PF section of CHARMS-PF, adjusting certain sections of QUIPS and extracting data on the sex and gender terms used throughout the studies. In this paper, we provide an overview of the lessons learned from carrying out our reviews on sex as a PF in different disciplines and now call on researchers, funding agencies and journals to realize the importance of studying sex as a PF.
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.