Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40687958›Full record

ArticleBMJ public health2025

Are sex and gender dimensions accounted for in NICE guidelines? A systematic review of 223 clinical guidelines.

Rachel Hulme, Owen Wilkinson, Ella Haythornthwaite, Veronia Benjamin, Hemali Matharu, Marina Politis, Kate Womersley, Robyn Norton, Alice Witt

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
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.

Rachel HulmeThe George Institute for Global Health UK, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0001-3064-4590
Owen WilkinsonImperial College London, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0001-3159-7167
Ella HaythornthwaiteImperial College London, London, UK.
Veronia BenjaminImperial College London, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0007-5526-4811
Hemali MatharuImperial College London, London, UK.
Marina PolitisThe George Institute for Global Health UK, London, UK.
Kate WomersleyThe George Institute for Global Health UK, London, UK.
Robyn NortonImperial College London, London, UK.
Alice WittThe George Institute for Global Health UK, London, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: The importance of sex and gender in the diagnosis and management of health conditions is well established, but the extent to which sex and gender disaggregated evidence is integrated into UK clinical practice guidelines remains unknown. Recent reviews of clinical guidelines in Canada and Europe identified that limited and inconsistent attention was paid to sex and gender dimensions of health and illness. This study aimed to determine how the UK's National Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE) clinical guidelines account for sex and gender. Methods: The study reviewed all NICE guidelines categorised as 'clinical guidelines' by NICE (223), excluding those solely linked to single-sex conditions (26). Reviewers evaluated whether they included information on sex and/or gender dimensions of disease risk, presentation, investigations and management. They also examined if sex and/or gender dimensions were considered outside of pregnancy, and how the gender of guideline committee chairs and members corresponded to how well sex and/or gender were accounted for. Results: Of 197 guidelines reviewed, 120 (61%) referenced sex and/or gender dimensions, with 81 (41%) referencing these dimensions outside of pregnancy and childbearing. A minority of guidelines mentioned sex and/or gender dimensions related to disease pathophysiology (2%), clinical presentation (9%), investigations (15%) and epidemiology (19%). 162 guidelines published details of their committee chairs, and 126 (76%) were men. Committees chaired by women tended to produce guidelines, which scored better for consideration of sex and gender. Conclusion: This study highlights key gaps in NICE guidelines which must be addressed through systematic, whole-sector progress to integrate sex and gender disaggregated research into clinical guidelines. As the single focal point responsible for guideline development in England and Wales, NICE has a unique opportunity to establish robust mechanisms to routinely embed this important evidence in guidelines. Multiple initiatives are recommended to identify relevant existing evidence across all clinical specialties.

Indexed as

FemaleHealth PersonnelPublic HealthSex FactorsSociodemographic Factors

Identifiers

PMID40687958
PMCPMC12273117

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.