MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412555219 · doi:10.1136/bmjph-2024-002510

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

2025· review· en· W4412555219 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Rachel Hulme, Owen Wilkinson, Ella Haythornthwaite, Veronia Benjamin, Hemali Matharu, Marina Politis, Kate Womersley, Robyn Norton, Alice Witt

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Public Health · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSex and Gender in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersWellcome Trust
KeywordsNiceExcellenceGuidelineMedicineSystematic reviewFamily medicinePsychologyMEDLINEPolitical sciencePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.025
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.073
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.356
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0250.073
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0100.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.731
GPT teacher head0.645
Teacher spread0.086 · 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ Public HealthSame topicSex and Gender in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207