Cited by 2,184Sex and Gender in HealthcareDiversity and Career in MedicineMeta-analysis and systematic reviews

Sex and Gender Equity in Research: rationale for the SAGER guidelines and recommended use

Open access
Heidari, Shirin, Babor, Thomas F., De Castro, Paola, Tort, Sera, Curno, Mirjam·2016·Research Integrity and Peer Review

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Sex and gender differences are often overlooked in research design, study implementation and scientific reporting, as well as in general science communication. This oversight limits the generalizability of research findings and their applicability to clinical practice, in particular for women but also for men. This article describes the rationale for an international set of guidelines to encourage a more systematic approach to the reporting of sex and gender in research across disciplines. METHODS: A panel of 13 experts representing nine countries developed the guidelines through a series of teleconferences, conference presentations and a 2-day workshop. An internet survey of 716 journal editors, scientists and other members of the international publishing community was conducted as well as a literature search on sex and gender policies in scientific publishing. RESULTS: The Sex and Gender Equity in Research (SAGER) guidelines are a comprehensive procedure for reporting of sex and gender information in study design, data analyses, results and interpretation of findings. CONCLUSIONS: The SAGER guidelines are designed primarily to guide authors in preparing their manuscripts, but they are also useful for editors, as gatekeepers of science, to integrate assessment of sex and gender into all manuscripts as an integral part of the editorial process.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/s41073-016-0007-6

Cites

27 of 27 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [3]Institute of Medicine (IOM) Sex-specific reporting of scientific research: a workshop summary 2012 Washington, DC The National Academies Press 22379657

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Heidari, S., Babor, T. F., De Castro, P., Tort, S., & Curno, M.
Affiliations
  • European Association of Science Editors (GB)
  • University of Connecticut (US)
  • Cochrane (GB)
  • International AIDS Society (CH)
Corresponding author
Babor, Thomas F.
Venue
Research Integrity and Peer Review
Published
2016-05-03
Volume
1
Issue
1
Pages
2-2
ISSN
2058-8615 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2343343747
Cited by
2,184
References
27
Citations by year
2026: 387 · 2025: 406 · 2024: 416 · 2023: 289 · 2022: 232 · 2021: 162 · 2020: 141 · 2019: 62 · 2018: 41 · 2017: 34 · 2016: 12
FWCI
49.24
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Research Integrity and Peer Review (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Sex and Gender in Healthcare
  • Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Diversity and Career in Medicine
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
Keywords
SAGER guidelines, sex differences, gender differences, reporting guidelines, scholarly publishing, journal editorial process, generalizability of research findings, women in science

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review