We identified a need to translate evidence about sex/gender to systematic reviewers. We decided to adopt briefing notes to complete this task because they allow for the synthesis of evidence and seemed well suited to the targeted users of systematic reviews. Briefing notes, communication tools commonly used by policy and decision makers, concisely describe an issue along with pertinent evidence, options and recommended actions in a user friendly format intended to increase awareness and uptake. They are sometimes NSC 136476 referred to as ‘evidence briefs’ and are widely used by leading health research groups such as National Institute for Health and Care Excellence to concisely communicate evidence for decision making. This article describes the development, pilot testing and evaluation of sex/gender briefing notes to translate evidence about how to consider sex/gender in systematic reviews. The musculoskeletal note highlights the difference in prevalence for some musculoskeletal disorders for men and women often reflecting underlying pathophysiologic mechanisms. The hypertension note provides examples related to the differing manifestation, outcomes and prevalence of hypertension among women and men. To develop the fourth section on methods, we built on existing structured guidance for systematic reviewers by appraising four current checklists for systematic reviews: 1) the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses -Equity reporting guidelines ; 2) AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. ; 3) Methodological Standards for the Conduct of Cochrane Intervention Reviews ; and the Campbell and Cochrane Equity Methods Group Equity Checklist. The Cochrane Review Groups suggested that topic-specific examples were needed for each briefing note. We identified Cochrane and non-Cochrane peer-reviewed published systematic reviews in each topic area where elements of the reviews addressed an aspect of sex/gender. Reviews were chosen in several ways: by seeking review nominations from our collaborators in each of the review groups; searching for sex and gender in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews; using the Montori search filter for sensitivity in searching for systematic reviews and using the text words “sex” and “gender” in PubMed. Significantly, we did not find exemplar reviews that served as a model for integrating sex/gender analysis but identified examples of reviews where some limited consideration was given to sex/gender issues. After a period of feedback and revision from the three collaborating review groups we moved to evaluate the briefing notes with a broader group of users. We conducted a workshop at the 2012 Canadian Cochrane Symposium and invited user feedback on the briefing notes. The Canadian Cochrane Symposium provided a very useful setting to evaluate the briefing notes as it gathers a diverse array of participants involved in systematic reviews including systematic review authors, methodologists, researchers and users of systematic reviews such as policy makers and health care practitioners. The workshop was open to all conference attendees with all levels of experience in systematic reviews in order to ensure that the comprehensibility of the briefing notes were evaluated by experts and non-experts. Participants self-selected to attend. A simple content analysis of responses was conducted and similar responses were grouped according to each evaluation question. Examples of responses are quoted verbatim below to illustrate respondents’ insights into the key areas evaluated.