ReviewWomen's health (London, England)
Do clinical practice guidelines incorporate sex and gender evidence?
Review in Women's health (London, England). The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Inclusion of sex and gender in clinical practice guidelines: an umbrella review.BMJ open quality · 2026Pooled it
- A Guide for the Inclusion of Sex and Gender Considerations in Clinical Practice Guidelines.Clinical and public health guidelines · 2026Article
- From evidence to action: Gender-sensitive cardiovascular care - A quantitative survey with physicians working in cardiology departments.PLOS global public health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Although the translation of sex and gender evidence into clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) is strongly advised by specialists, this commitment may be limited to presenting findings on women for specific diseases and topics. The inclusion of sex and gender evidence should deploy available data on health and illness, taking human diversity into consideration, especially when drafting CPGs. This work examines 21 guidelines from Spanish CPGs from 2018 to 2022, scraping sex and gender evidence across documents under the lens of 59 keywords related to sex and gender. Three out of four CPGs included relevant keywords to analyse. Then the set of words was analysed in terms of their frequency, as well as the context of the words (nature and location of the information in the CPG). It found that masculine keywords were widespread in CPGs as a result of an androcentric orientation in clinical research, except for those CPGs centred on women's issues. CPGs focused on technical procedures tended to omit considerations regarding sex and gender. CPGs developed under the lens of a more sensitive gender approach formulated relevant Patient, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes (PICO) questions and showed a greater diversity of situations, detailing different types of patients. Even though some CPGs do express good intentions regarding gender mainstreaming - for example, using gendered language and a balanced developers' group - important omissions and a lack of precise information were still found.
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.