SynthesisBMJ open quality2026
Inclusion of sex and gender in clinical practice guidelines: an umbrella review.
Synthesis in BMJ open quality, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- A Guide for the Inclusion of Sex and Gender Considerations in Clinical Practice Guidelines.Clinical and public health guidelines · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundClinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are key to standardised, evidence-based and equitable healthcare, and the inclusion of sex and gender considerations in CPGs is increasingly recognised as essential for quality care and health equity. This umbrella review synthesised evidence from reviews examining the extent and quality of sex and gender considerations in CPGs and identified barriers and best practice strategies to support their inclusion.
methodsLiterature searches were conducted across eight databases, identifying systematic reviews and other reviews published between 2000 and 2025 that focused on sex and gender considerations in CPGs. Data extraction and quality appraisal followed Joanna Briggs Institute guidelines. After descriptively summarising the reviews, narrative synthesis was used to summarise how sex and gender considerations were integrated across the included reviews, identifying common issues and recommendations for improving their incorporation into CPGs.
resultsAnalysis of the seven included reviews (appraising a total of 784 CPGs) found that despite mention of sex or gender in 69% of CPGs, only 15% incorporated these factors into diagnostic or management recommendations, reflecting inconsistent, conceptually unclear and often superficial application. Major barriers included under-representation of women, limited sex and gender expertise on guideline committees, incomplete translation of sex-specific and gender-specific evidence into recommendations, inconsistent terminology and methodological limitations in guideline development. To address these gaps, the included reviews identified several strategies that could be implemented before, during and after the guideline development process.
conclusionSex and gender inclusion in CPGs remains inconsistent and superficial, with significant implications for health equity. Addressing this requires strengthening sex-informed and gender-informed evidence, ensuring diverse and expert representation in guideline development and adopting systematic approaches that translate evidence into equitable, population-responsive recommendations.
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.