Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Background/Objectives: Evidence-based medicine (EBM) shapes most clinical guidelines. Although the advent of EBM marked a significant advancement, failure to include sex differences in the study design and analysis of most trials leads to an under-representation of gender-specific medicine (GM) in EBM-directed guidelines. In this review, we evaluated how the topic of GM was developed in the guidelines produced by the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) from 2018 to 2023. Methods: Two independent reviewers evaluated 24 ESC guidelines. Significant mentions of GM were counted and divided between epidemiology, diagnosis, and therapeutics. The qualitative and semi-quantitative analysis of information relating to GM was performed. Data on the number of citations of papers with a title concerning GM and the prevalence and role of women in guidelines’ authorship were also analyzed. Results: Less than 50% of guidelines had a section dedicated to GM. Only nine guidelines were led by a woman, and 144/567 authors were female. In the most recent guidelines and in those with at least 30% of female authors, there was an increased mention of GM. On average, guidelines had four significant mentions of GM regarding epidemiology, two regarding diagnosis, and one regarding therapy. Articles with titles concerning GM made up, on average, 1.5% of the total number of citations. Conclusions: Although sex differences play a significant role in most clinical scenarios, ESC guidelines still do not sufficiently account for this. The problem does not seem to solely lie in the guidelines, but in the lack of attention to GM in research needed for their preparation.
Piani et al. (Wed,) studied this question.