ArticleBMJ open2026
Perspectives on sex and gender inclusion in clinical practice guidelines: a qualitative study.
Article 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionClinical practice guidelines (CPGs) provide standardised direction for the diagnosis, management and treatment of medical conditions. However, sex and gender, critical determinants of health, are often inconsistently incorporated within guideline development. This study explored expert opinions on how sex and gender are currently considered in CPGs, the barriers to meaningful integration and practical strategies to strengthen equity-focused guideline development.
methodsSemi-structured interviews were conducted with 28 participants representing clinical practice, sex and gender research, public health and health and advocacy organisations. A framework analysis approach was used for data analysis.
findingsTwo overarching challenges were identified as limiting the integration of sex and gender in CPGs: (1) persistent evidence gaps, including limited clinical data disaggregated by sex and gender and (2) politicisation of terminology, which undermines clarity and consistency in guideline processes. Participants highlighted the need for stronger evidence stratified by sex and gender, clear reporting standards, inclusive and appropriate language and greater representation of women and gender-diverse people on guideline committees. An intersectional approach was viewed as essential to ensure guidelines recognise structural, cultural and social contexts that shape differing health needs.
conclusionThis study outlines practical, internationally relevant actions to improve the integration of sex and gender into CPGs. Strengthening evidence, reporting standards and inclusivity within guideline processes provides a clear pathway to enhance clinical quality, improve equity and better support diverse populations.
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.