Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36599458›Full record

ArticleThe Medical journal of Australia2023

The representation of women on Australian clinical practice guideline panels, 2010-2020.

Anna Shalit, Lauren Vallely, Renae Nguyen, Meghan Bohren, Agnes Wilson, Caroline Se Homer, Joshua Vogel

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Medical journal of Australia, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Gender disparities in the development of clinical practice guidelines in Peru.Revista peruana de medicina experimental y salud publica · 2026
    Observational
  2. Gender differences in authorship of Canadian Urological Association guidelines.Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada · 2025
    Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. 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

7 authors.

Anna ShalitThe Burnet Institute, Melbourne, VIC.
Lauren VallelyThe Burnet Institute, Melbourne, VIC.
Renae NguyenThe Burnet Institute, Melbourne, VIC.
Meghan BohrenMelbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC.
Agnes WilsonHereco, Sydney, NSW.
Caroline Se HomerThe Burnet Institute, Melbourne, VIC.ORCID 0000-0002-7454-3011
Joshua VogelThe Burnet Institute, Melbourne, VIC.

Funding

Australian Research Council National Health and Medical Research Council
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo assess the composition by gender of Australian clinical practice guideline development panels; to explore guideline development-related factors that influence the composition of panels. DESIGN, SETTING,

participantsSurvey of clinical guidelines published in Australia during 2010-2020 that observed the 2016 NHMRC Standards for Guidelines, identified (June 2021) in the NHMRC Clinical Practice Guideline Portal or by searching the Guideline International Network guidelines library, the Trip medical database, and PubMed. The gender of contributors to guideline development was inferred from gendered titles (guideline documents) or pronouns (online biographies).

main outcome measuresThe overall proportion of guideline panel members - the guideline contributors who formally considered evidence and formulated recommendations (ie, guideline panel chairs and members) - who were women.

resultsOf 406 eligible guidelines, 335 listed the names of people who contributed to their development (82%). Of 7472 named contributors (including 511 guideline panel chairs [6.8%] and 5039 guideline panel members [67.4%]), 3514 were men (47.0%), 3345 were women (44.8%), and gender could not be determined for 612 (8.2%). A total of 215 guideline panel chairs were women (42.1%), 280 were men (54.8%); 2566 guideline panel members were men (50.9%), 2071 were women (41.1%). The proportion of female guideline panel members was smaller than 40% for 179 guidelines (53%) and larger than 60% for 71 guidelines (21%). The median guideline proportion of female panel members was smaller than 50% for all but two years (2017, 2018).

conclusionsThe representation of women in health leadership roles in Australia does not reflect their level of participation in the health care workforce. In particular, clinical guideline development bodies should develop transparent policies for increasing the participation of women in guideline development panels.

Indexed as

Governing BoardPractice Guidelines as TopicAustraliaFemaleHumansMaleGuidelines as topicHealth policyPhysicians, womenPublic health

Identifiers

PMID36599458
PMCPMC10953318

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.