Skip to main content

Table 3 Examples of reporting in each systematic review section

From: Sex/gender reporting and analysis in Campbell and Cochrane systematic reviews: a cross-sectional methods study

Review section Examples
Abstract “Most participants in the studies included in this review were male. None of the studies reported outcomes on the basis of sex, preventing any exploration of differences related to this variable. Consideration of sex as a factor influencing response to withdrawal treatment would be relevant research for selecting the most appropriate type of intervention for each individual” [33]
“To assess the effectiveness in women and the safety in men of concurrent antibiotic treatment for the sexual partners of women treated for bacterial vaginosis” [34]
“In addition, the gender of the facilitator seems to play an important role, since women prefer to discuss private issues with somebody of the same sex” [35].
Background “The prevalence of AAA increases with age and occurs much more frequently in men than women” [36].
“In general, males are more likely to be dropouts than females (9.8% vs. 7.7%), but teenage pregnancy and parenthood are particularly strong risk factors for young women, especially in the United States” [37]
“In the USA alone, gallstones are present in 8% to 20% of the population by the age of 40 years, and are more likely to develop in women than in men by a ratio of between 2 and 3 to 1” [38]
Methods “We considered performing subgroup analyses to establish effectiveness relative to gender, chronicity, age or stroke severity (respectively men versus women; early (less than one year post-stroke) versus late (more than one year post-stroke); young adults versus older; mild/moderate versus severe stroke, if sufficient data were available” [39].
“We would have considered type of intervention and duration of intervention as well as gender of psychiatrist and patient, education in the UK versus non-UK trained psychiatrists” [40].
“Although it was planned to disaggregate studies by gender where possible, we found a gaping lacuna of gender-relevant evidence and were unable to quantitatively examine differential impacts for women and men, as is discussed in our section on opportunities for further research” [41].
Results “There was no indication of a differential effect in serious adverse events, withdrawals due to adverse effects or changes in blood pressure at one year. However, there were too few women to make any conclusions” [42].
“When we pooled Bryson 1983 and Kinghorn 1986b, and considered men and women separately, for males there is a difference in the duration of symptoms after treatment with acyclovir (MD −2.10 days, 95% CI − 4.28 to 0.09; 2 RCTs, 33 men, I2 statistic = 0%). In females there was high heterogeneity between the two trials included in the meta-analysis and it did not show any statistical difference between those taking acyclovir and those taking placebo (MD −4.13 days, 95% CI − 10.15 to 1.89; 2 RCTs, 49 women, I2 statistic = 71%). However overall, we did not observe any statistical difference between men and women (Test for subgroup differences: Chi2 = 0.39, P = 0.53) for the duration of symptoms from onset of treatment” [43].
“Whether officially members of certified POs or not, women involved in certified production are often reported to be disadvantaged in terms of both the benefits they receive and in their influence over decision making within the certified [Producer Organization] POs. For instance, certification-related training may in theory be open to all PO members, in practice, however, women are reported to be less likely to participate, possibly because training is not tailored to their needs and agenda” [44].
Discussion “One study examined pregnant women (Powell 2011); as it is unknown how FeNO levels are affected during pregnancy, extrapolation of this review to pregnancy is limited. Furthermore, less than 50% of women in this study were on ICS at baseline. As the participants in the rest of the studies were on ICS, results of this review should not be extrapolated to adults with asthma who do not require daily ICS to control their symptoms” [45]
“…the absence of follow-up studies assessing the long-term impact of a bulging fontanelle after supplementation; and the finding of a potentially harmful effect among female infants, additional research is warranted before a decision can be reached regarding any policy recommendations for this intervention” [26].
“Although many of the included studies provided some information about gender differences in impact, relatively few explored how the impact of TVET interventions on young women and men might then vary according to other populations characteristics, such as age, socio-economic status, and location” [46].