Table 2.

Assessment of sex/gender sensitivity in each section of the selected articles – Synopsis of the results

Reference	Background	Study design	Statistical analysis	Discussion
1. Bambra et al. [50]	++	+	○	++
2. Berntsson et al. [51]	++	++	+	++
3. Boone-Heinonen & Gordon-Larsen [52]	+	○	+	+
4. Borrell et al. [53]	○	○	+	++
5. Escribà-Agüir et al. [54]	++	++	+	+
6. Escribà-Agüir & Artazcoz [55]	++	++	+	+
7. Gissler et al. [56]	+	○	○	+
8. Haukenes et al. [57]	○	○	○	+
9. Harryson et al. [58]	+	++	+	+
10. Hernanadez & Pressler [59]	+	○	+	+
11. Heys et al. [60]	++	++	+	○
12. Hollander et al. [61]	++	○	+	+
13. Ikeda et al. [62]	++	+	+	++
14. Kavanagh et al. [63]	++	+	++	++
15. King et al. [64]	○	○	○	+
16. Kolarcik et al. [65]	○	+	+	+
17. Kovess-Masfety et al. [66]	++	+	+	++
18. Mansdotter et al. [67]	++	++	++	++
19. Matheson et al. [68]	++	+	++	++
20. Matheson et al. [69]	++	+	++	+
21. Matheson et al. [70]	+	+	+	+
22. Matheson et al. [71]	+	+	○	+
23. McCormack et al. [72]	+	○	+	○
24. Milner et al. [73]	+	○	+	+
25. Mindell et al. [74]	○	○	○	○
26. Nante et al. [75]	++	+	+	++
27. Niclasen et al. [76]	+	○	○	○
28. Pitel et al. [77]	+	○	+	+
29. Ratner et al. [78]	+	+	+	+
30. Regidor et al. [79]	○	○	+	○
31. Rigby & Dorling [80]	○	○	○	++
32. Rosenstock et al. [81]	++	++	++	++
33. Ruiz-Cantero et al. [82]	++	++	+	+
34. Staehelin et al. [83]	++	○	○	++
35. Strand et al. [84]	+	○	+	++
36. Värnik et al. [85]	++	○	○	+
37. Vigna-Taglianti et al. [86]	+	○	○	++

Legend: ++ = good practice examples of sex/gender sensitivity, + = intermediate category (sex/gender aspects addressed to some extent); ○ = neither a good practice example of sex/gender sensitivity nor intermediate category