| Ref ID | 840 |
| First Author | A. Antequera |
| Journal | SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS |
| Year Of Publishing | 2022 |
| URL | https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s13643-021-01867-3 |
| Keywords |
• Team • Cochrane • Author • External validity • Low reporting quality • Equity |
| Problem(s) |
• Weaknesses identified in some Cochrane reviews • Failure to consider equity, different socioeconomic groups or disadvantaged populations • Individual study characteristics not reported sufficiently • Lack of diversity in review authorship teams |
| Article Type | Empirical |
| Article Subtype | Cross-sectional survey/Methodological systematic review |
| First Author Country | Spain |
| Aim | To describe the extent to which sex is analysed and reported in a cross-section of Cochrane SRs of interventions, and assess the association with the gender of main authorships. |
| Level of Investigation | Analytical |
| Summary of Findings | From 516 included Cochrane systematic reviews published during 2018 within the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Sex consideration amongst Cochrane systematic reviews was frequently missing. 56 out of 516 reviews included sex-related reporting in the abstract, 90 considered sex in their design, 380 provided sex-disaggregated descriptive data, 142 reported main outcomes or performed subgroup analyses by sex, and 76 discussed the potential impact of sex or the lack of such on the interpretations of findings. Women represented 53.1 and 42.2% of first and last authorships of Cochrane reviews, respectively. Women authors (in first and last position) was correlated with a higher probability of reporting sex in at least one of the review sections (OR 2.05; CI 95% 1.12–3.75, P=0.020) than having none. |
| Number of systematic reviews included | 516 |
| Number of eligible systematic reviews assessed | 610 |
| Treatment impacted | No |
| Treatment impacted description | |
| Interpretation impacted | Not Applicable |
| Interpretation impacted description |