MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3215941455 · doi:10.1186/s13293-021-00404-0

Sex and gender considerations in reporting guidelines for health research: a systematic review

2021· review· en· W3215941455 on OpenAlexaff
Amédé Gogovor, Hervé Tchala Vignon Zomahoun, Giraud Ekanmian, Évèhouénou Lionel Adisso, Alèxe Deom Tardif, Lobna Khadhraoui, Nathalie Rhéault, David Moher, France Légaré

Bibliographic record

VenueBiology of Sex Differences · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSex and Gender in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsFirst Nations of Quebec and Labrador Health and Social Services CommissionUniversity of OttawaInstitut Universitaire en Santé Mentale de QuébecUniversité LavalOttawa HospitalQuebec Rehabilitation Research Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChecklistGuidelineCategorizationMedicineMedical educationPsychologyFamily medicineComputer sciencePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Despite growing recognition of the importance of sex and gender considerations in health research, they are rarely integrated into research design and reporting. We sought to assess the integration of sex, as a biological attribute, and gender, as a socially constructed identity, in published reporting guidelines. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of published reporting guidelines listed on the EQUATOR website ( www.equator-nework.org ) from inception until December 2018. We selected all reporting guidelines (original and extensions) listed in the EQUATOR library. We used EndNote Citation Software to build a database of the statements of each guideline identified as a "full bibliographic reference" and retrieved the full texts. Reviewers independently extracted the data on use of sex and gender terms from the checklist/abstract/main text of guidelines. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and narrative synthesis. RESULTS: A total of 407 reporting guidelines were included; they were published between 1995 and 2018. Of the 407 guidelines, 235 (57.7%) mentioned at least one of the sex- and gender-related words. In the checklist of the reporting guidelines (n = 363), "sex" and "gender" were mentioned in 50 (13.8%) and 40 (11%), respectively. Only one reporting guideline met our criteria (nonbinary, appropriate categorization, and non-interchangeability) for correct use of sex and gender concepts. Trends in the use of "sex" and "gender" in the checklists showed that the use of "sex" only started in 2003, while "gender" has been in use since 1996. CONCLUSIONS: We assessed the integration of sex and gender in reporting guidelines based on the use of sex- and gender-related words. Our findings showed a low use and integration of sex and gender concepts and their incorrect use. Authors of reporting guidelines should reduce this gap for a better use of research knowledge. Trial registration PROSPERO no. CRD42019136491.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.497
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.789
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Reporting · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.503
Threshold uncertainty score0.620

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.4970.789
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.011
Bibliometrics0.0360.044
Science and technology studies0.0050.009
Scholarly communication0.0140.027
Open science0.0090.008
Research integrity0.0070.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.876
GPT teacher head0.635
Teacher spread0.241 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designSystematic review
DomainReporting
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations60
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiology of Sex DifferencesSame topicSex and Gender in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207