SynthesisBiomedical engineering online2026
Systematic review of instruments for measuring sex and gender attributes: assessment of measurement properties and utility in research on clinical and functional outcomes.
Synthesis in Biomedical engineering online, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo identify and synthesize instruments used to assess sex and gender attributes in relation to clinical and functional outcomes in adults.
methodsWe searched four databases from inception to November 20, 2023, to identify English-language studies on clinical and functional outcomes that used instruments of sex and gender attributes. On July 20, 2025, we searched MEDLINE for studies on the measurement properties of the instruments previously identified. We used Holmbeck and colleagues' evidence-based criteria and rated quality based on measurement properties, including frequency of use by independent researchers, validity and reliability in relevant populations, and sufficiency of information for replication and appraisal.
resultsOf the 12,948 unique records identified through our primary searches, 46 studies met our inclusion criteria. Eighteen of the studies had male-only samples, five had female-only samples, and the remaining included samples featuring both sexes, of which one also featured transgender and nonbinary people. These studies utilized a total of 34 instruments, of which eight assessed sex and 26 assessed gender attributes, of which only one measure, the Gender Self Report, had its scores validated in samples other than binary gender. We assigned high quality ratings to three instruments measuring sex, and three measuring gender attributes, with the remaining instruments classified as moderate or lower based on the predefined rating criteria including measurement properties assessed in relevant populations. Construct validity was the most reported property, and test-retest reliability was the least reported on.
conclusionThe measurement properties of instruments measuring attributes of sex and gender in relevant populations varied. Validation of the scores in non-binary samples is limited. Further validation and application of highly rated instruments in diverse samples is timely for advancing equitable practices and policies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.