• Martina Koryzma-Hermosilla, Silvana Pulgar-Bustos, Catalina Velásquez-Reyes, Carla Cisterna-Landeros, and Francisca Crispi.
• Escuela de Salud Pública, Universidad de Chile, Santiago, Chile.
• Rev Med Chil. 2021 Dec 1; 149 (12): 1765-1772.

BackgroundDiseases and treatments have different presentations and impact in men and women due to sex and gender differences. This issue justifies a gender differentiated approach in clinical practice guidelines.AimTo evaluate gender biases in the Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPG) of the Explicit Health Guarantees program (GES) in Chile.Material And MethodsGES CPGs documents published between 2005 and 2019 were reviewed. A keyword search was carried out in the CPGs, and they were classified into five groups according to their degree of incorporation of the sex / gender variables, following the methodology by Tannenbaum et al. Also, the correct use of the concepts about sex and gender was evaluated.ResultsEighty five CPGs were evaluated and 25% have specific recommendations by sex (group 1 and 2). Two percent of guides determined specific parameters by sex in diagnostic tests (group 3). Sixty one percent mention the keywords superficially or only in the section of epidemiology and risk factors, without proposing a sex differentiated management (group 4 and 5). Sixty two percent of guides have an appropriate use of concepts, 22% a wrong usage, and 17% do not refer to sex or gender.ConclusionsGender biases are evidenced in most of the GES guidelines.

5 keywords...

hide…