Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34801060›Full record

SynthesisBiology of sex differences2021

Sex and gender considerations in reporting guidelines for health research: a systematic review.

Amédé Gogovor, Hervé Tchala Vignon Zomahoun, Giraud Ekanmian, Évèhouénou Lionel Adisso, Alèxe Deom Tardif, Lobna Khadhraoui, Nathalie Rheault, David Moher, France Légaré

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Biology of sex differences, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed, 5 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

31 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Teaching gender medicine can enhance the quality of healthcare.American heart journal plus : cardiology research and practice · 2024
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Protected characteristics reported in pulmonary rehabilitation: a scoping review.European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society · 2024
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

9 authors.

Amédé GogovorQuebec SPOR-SUPPORT Unit, Quebec City, QC, Canada.
Hervé Tchala Vignon ZomahounQuebec SPOR-SUPPORT Unit, Quebec City, QC, Canada.
Giraud EkanmianQuebec SPOR-SUPPORT Unit, Quebec City, QC, Canada.
Évèhouénou Lionel AdissoTier 1 Canada Research Chair in Shared Decision Making and Knowledge Translation, Université Laval, Quebec City, QC, Canada.
Alèxe Deom TardifTier 1 Canada Research Chair in Shared Decision Making and Knowledge Translation, Université Laval, Quebec City, QC, Canada.
Lobna KhadhraouiQuebec SPOR-SUPPORT Unit, Quebec City, QC, Canada.
Nathalie RheaultQuebec SPOR-SUPPORT Unit, Quebec City, QC, Canada.
David MoherSchool of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
France LégaréQuebec SPOR-SUPPORT Unit, Quebec City, QC, Canada. france.legare@mfa.ulaval.ca.ORCID 0000-0002-2296-6696

Funding

Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) grant awarded to the Quebec SPOR Support Unit (QSSU) SU1-139759
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDespite growing recognition of the importance of sex and gender considerations in health research, they are rarely integrated into research design and reporting. We sought to assess the integration of sex, as a biological attribute, and gender, as a socially constructed identity, in published reporting guidelines.

methodsWe conducted a systematic review of published reporting guidelines listed on the EQUATOR website ( www.equator-nework.org ) from inception until December 2018. We selected all reporting guidelines (original and extensions) listed in the EQUATOR library. We used EndNote Citation Software to build a database of the statements of each guideline identified as a "full bibliographic reference" and retrieved the full texts. Reviewers independently extracted the data on use of sex and gender terms from the checklist/abstract/main text of guidelines. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and narrative synthesis.

resultsA total of 407 reporting guidelines were included; they were published between 1995 and 2018. Of the 407 guidelines, 235 (57.7%) mentioned at least one of the sex- and gender-related words. In the checklist of the reporting guidelines (n = 363), "sex" and "gender" were mentioned in 50 (13.8%) and 40 (11%), respectively. Only one reporting guideline met our criteria (nonbinary, appropriate categorization, and non-interchangeability) for correct use of sex and gender concepts. Trends in the use of "sex" and "gender" in the checklists showed that the use of "sex" only started in 2003, while "gender" has been in use since 1996.

conclusionsWe assessed the integration of sex and gender in reporting guidelines based on the use of sex- and gender-related words. Our findings showed a low use and integration of sex and gender concepts and their incorrect use. Authors of reporting guidelines should reduce this gap for a better use of research knowledge. Trial registration PROSPERO no. CRD42019136491.

Indexed as

Biomedical ResearchChecklistGender IdentityFemaleHumansMaleGenderHealth researchQuality of reportingReporting guidelineSexSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID34801060
PMCPMC8605583

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.