Sex and Gender Equity in Research: rationale for the SAGER guidelines and recommended use
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.3889/izvor.2026.5Keywords:
Sex, Gender, Guidelines, SAGER, Scientific research, Scientific publishing, Gender bias, EquityAbstract
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.
Downloads
References
1. Coen S, Banister E. What a difference sex and gender make: a gender, sex and health research casebook: CIHR Institute of Gender and Health; 2012.
2. Hoffmann DE, Tarzian AJ. The girl who cried pain: a bias against women in the treatment of pain. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics. 2001;29(1):13-27.
3. Institute of Medicine (IOM). Sex-specific reporting of scientific research: a workshop summary: National Academies Press; 2012.
4. Geller SE, Koch A, Pellettieri B, Carnes M. Inclusion, analysis, and reporting of sex and race/ethnicity in clinical trials: have we made progress? Journal of women's health. 2011;20(3):315-20.
5. Leopold SS, Beadling L, Dobbs MB, Gebhardt MC, Lotke PA, Manner PA, et al. Fairness to all: gender and sex in scientific reporting. LWW; 2014. p. 391-2.
6. Clayton JA, Collins FS. Policy: NIH to balance sex in cell and animal studies. Nature. 2014;509(7500):282-3.
7. Kim ES, Menon V. Status of women in cardiovascular clinical trials. Arteriosclerosis, thrombosis, and vascular biology. 2009;29(3):279-83.
8. Johnson JL, Greaves L, Repta R. Better science with sex and gender: facilitating the use of a sex and gender-based analysis in health research. International journal for equity in health. 2009;8:1-11.
9. Greenspan JD, Craft RM, LeResche L, Arendt-Nielsen L, Berkley KJ, Fillingim RB, et al. Studying sex and gender differences in pain and analgesia: a consensus report. Pain. 2007;132:S26-S45.
10. U.S. Government Accountability Office G--R. Drug Safety: Most drugs withdrawn in recent years had greater health risk for women. [Internet]. Available at: http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-01-286R. 2001.
11. Food and Drug Administration. Risk-of-next-morning-impairment-after-use-of-insomnia-drugs--FDA-requires-lower-recommended-doses-for-certain-drugs-containing-zolpidem-(Ambien--Ambien-CR--Edluar--and-Zolpimist).[Internet]. Available at: http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-01-286R. FDA Drug Safety Communication. (2013).
12. Linder A, Schick S, Hell W, Svensson M, Carlsson A, Lemmen P, et al. ADSEAT–Adaptive seat to reduce neck injuries for female and male occupants. Accident Analysis & Prevention. 2013;60:334-43.
13. Jakobsson L, Norin H, Svensson MY. Parameters influencing AIS 1 neck injury outcome in frontal impacts. Traffic injury prevention. 2004;5(2):156-63.
14. Zarin DA, Tse T, Ide NC. Trial registration at ClinicalTrials. gov between May and October 2005. New England Journal of Medicine. 2005;353(26):2779-87.
15. Panic N, Leoncini E, de Belvis G, Ricciardi W, Boccia S. Evaluation of the endorsement of the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis (PRISMA) statement on the quality of published systematic review and meta-analyses. PloS one. 2013;8(12):e83138.
16. Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D, Group* C. CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomized trials. Annals of internal medicine. 2010;152(11):726-32.
17. Plint AC, Moher D, Morrison A, Schulz K, Altman DG, Hill C, et al. Does the CONSORT checklist improve the quality of reports of randomised controlled trials? A systematic review. Medical journal of Australia. 2006;185(5):263-7.
18. Kilkenny C, Browne WJ, Cuthill IC, Emerson M, Altman DG. Improving bioscience research reporting: the ARRIVE guidelines for reporting animal research. Plos Biol. 2010;8:e1000412.
19. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Recommendations for the conduct, reporting, editing, and publication of scholarly work in medical journals, updated December 2014. [Internet]. Available at: www.icmje.org/icmje-recommendations.pdf.
20. No authors listed.Taking sex into account in medicine. Lancet; 2011. p. 1826.
21. Doull M, Runnels VE, Tudiver S, Boscoe M. Appraising the evidence: applying sex-and gender-based analysis (SGBA) to Cochrane systematic reviews on cardiovascular diseases. Journal of Women's Health. 2010;19(5):997-1003.
22. Doull M, Welch V, Puil L, Runnels V, Coen SE, Shea B, et al. Development and evaluation of ‘briefing notes’ as a novel knowledge translation tool to aid the implementation of sex/gender analysis in systematic reviews: a pilot study. PLoS One. 2014;9(11):e110786.
23. Nowatzki N, Grant KR. Sex is not enough: the need for gender-based analysis in health research. Health care for women international. 2011;32(4):263-77.
24. Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Gender, sex and health research guide: a tool for CIHR applicants. 2014 [Internet]. Available at: http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/32019.html.
25. NIH policy and guidelines on the inclusion of women and minorities as subjects in clinical research - amended. 2001. [Internet]. Available at: http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/women_min/women_min.htm.
26. Nieuwenhoven L, Klinge I. Scientific excellence in applying sex-and gender-sensitive methods in biomedical and health research. Journal of Women's Health. 2010;19(2):313-21.
27. Nature’s sexism. Nature [Internet]. 2012;491(7425):495–495. Available from: http://www.nature.com/doifinder/10.1038/491495a.
28. Gendered Innovations in Science, Health & Medicine, Engineering and Enviroment. Sex and Gender analysis checklists, 2014. [Internet]. Available at: http://genderedinnovations.stanford.edu/researchers.html.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
Categories
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Slavica Hristomanova-Mitkovska (Преведувач)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
