New knowledge about male-female differences in pathophysiology, diagnosis, and treatment is shifting the practice of medicine from a one-size-fits all approach to a more individualized process that considers sex-specific interventions at the point of care. In this article, we review how clinical practice guideline committees can incorporate a structured framework to determine whether sex-specific assessments of the quality of the evidence or the particular recommendations should be made. The process can be operationalized by societies who author clinical practice guidelines by developing formal policies to approach biological sex in a systematic way, and by ensuring that writing committees include an individual who will champion the formal appraisal of the literature for associations between sex and the outcomes of interest. Ongoing challenges are discussed, and solutions are provided for how to disaggregate the evidence, how to assess bias, how to improve search strategies, and what to do when the data are insufficient to make sex-specific recommendations. Application of sex-specific recommendations will involve routinely asking whether the presentation, diagnostic workup, or management might change for each patient if they were the opposite sex.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Tannenbaum et al. (2018) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: