SynthesisBMJ open2026
Sex and gender reporting and differences in trials evaluating patient decision aids: a secondary analysis of systematic review with meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMJ open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
19 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesPatient decision aids (PtDAs) are effective interventions to support patient involvement in health decisions and have the potential to impact favourably on health inequities by reducing gender bias in clinical practice. The aim was to explore sex and gender reporting and differences in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating PtDAs for adults making treatment or screening decisions.
designSecondary analysis of the Cochrane review of PtDAs of RCTs that reported sex and/or gender. The original review searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsychINFO and EBSCO from journal inception to March 2022. Two team members independently screened citations, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. For this secondary analysis, we only included primary outcomes from the original review. We assessed appropriate use of terminology for sex (biological attribute) and gender (social construct). When terms were used interchangeably, it was considered inaccurate. Findings were synthesised descriptively, and we used meta-analysis when two or more RCTs were conducted with females/women or males/men using similar outcome measures. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Informed values-choice congruence and the quality of the decision-making process (eg, knowledge, accurate risk perceptions, feeling informed, clear values, participation in decision making, undecided) and adverse events (eg, decision regret, emotional distress) by sex and gender.
resultsOf 209 RCTs in the original review, 206 reported sex and/or gender, with 35 (17%) using accurate terminology. Of 206 RCTs, 70 were with females/women only, 27 males/men only, 12 analysed by sex/gender and 97 RCTs did not disaggregate findings by sex or gender. Meta-analysis comparing RCTs for females/women to usual care and RCTs for males/men only compared with usual care showed similar mean differences in knowledge scores (10.84 vs 9.38 out of 100; p=0.44). Males/men had significantly higher self-reported participation in decision making compared with females/women (RR 3.16 vs 0.95; p<0.01). Meta-analysis showed no significant differences in other outcomes.
conclusionsIn PtDA RCTs, sex and gender terms are used interchangeably and 6% analysed outcomes by sex or gender. Meta-analysis of males/men only given PtDAs showed higher self-reported decision making participation in clinical practice compared to usual care versus females/women only compared with usual care. Researchers must improve reporting sex and gender in PtDA RCTs to assess how it influences health inequities.
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.