Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36572932›Full record

ArticleSystematic reviews2022

Lack of sex-related analysis and reporting in Cochrane Reviews: a cross-sectional study.

Alba Antequera, M Ana Cuadrado-Conde, Emilia Roy-Vallejo, María Montoya-Martínez, Montserrat León-García, Olaya Madrid-Pascual, Sara Calderón-Larrañaga, Research for gender equity collaboration

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Systematic reviews, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Is It Time to Update Clinical Care Guidelines to Address Sex and Gender Differences in Smoking Cessation Medication Efficacy?Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

8 authors.

Alba Antequera *Biomedical Research Institute Sant Pau, Hospital de la Santa Creu i Sant Pau, Barcelona, Spain. alba.antequera.martin@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0002-1670-6302
M Ana Cuadrado-Conde *Accident and Emergency Department, King's College Hospital, London, UK.
Emilia Roy-Vallejo *Internal Medicine Department, Hospital Universitario de La Princesa, Madrid, Spain.
María Montoya-Martínez *Servicio Murciano de Salud, Coordinación Estratégica para la Cronicidad Avanzada y Atención Sociosanitaria, Murcia, Spain.
Montserrat León-García *Biomedical Research Institute Sant Pau, Hospital de la Santa Creu i Sant Pau, Barcelona, Spain.
Olaya Madrid-Pascual *Arztpraxis Kalkbreite, Zürich, Switzerland.
Sara Calderón-Larrañaga *Centre for Primary Care and Public Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.
Research for gender equity collaboration

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSex-specific analysis and reporting may allow a better understanding of intervention effects and can support the decision-making process. Well-conducted systematic reviews (SRs), like those carried out by the Cochrane Collaboration, provide clinical responses transparently and stress gaps of knowledge. This study aimed to describe the extent to which sex is analysed and reported in a cross-section of Cochrane SRs of interventions, and assess the association with the gender of main authorships.

methodsWe searched SRs published during 2018 within the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. An investigator appraised the sex-related analysis and reporting across sections of SRs and collected data on gender and country of affiliation of the review first and last authors, and a second checked for accuracy. We conducted descriptive statistics and bivariate logistic regression to explore the association between the gender of the authors and sex-related analysis and reporting.

resultsSix hundred and ten Cochrane SRs were identified. After removing those that met no eligibility criteria, 516 reviews of interventions were included. Fifty-six reviews included sex-related reporting in the abstract, 90 considered sex in their design, 380 provided sex-disaggregated descriptive data, 142 reported main outcomes or performed subgroup analyses by sex, and 76 discussed the potential impact of sex or the lack of such on the interpretations of findings. Women represented 53.1 and 42.2% of first and last authorships, respectively. Women authors (in first and last position) had a higher possibility to report sex in at least one of the review sections (OR 2.05; CI 95% 1.12-3.75, P=0.020) than having none.

conclusionsSex consideration amongst Cochrane SRs was frequently missing. Structured guidance to sex-related analysis and reporting is needed to enhance the external validity of findings. Likewise, including gender diversity within the research workforce and relevant authorship positions may foster equity in the evidence generated.

Indexed as

Gender IdentityCross-Sectional StudiesDatabases, FactualFemaleHumansMaleSystematic Reviews as TopicEquityExternal validityGender biasReportingSystematic reviews

Identifiers

PMID36572932
PMCPMC9791738

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.