Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25713032›Full record

ArticleFASEB journal : official publication of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology2015

Recommendations concerning the new U.S. National Institutes of Health initiative to balance the sex of cells and animals in preclinical research.

Kathryn Sandberg, Jason G Umans, Georgetown Consensus Conference Work Group

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in FASEB journal : official publication of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 42 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
42citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

42 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Guidelines for in vivo mouse models of myocardial infarction.American journal of physiology. Heart and circulatory physiology · 2021
    Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. The relationship between gender and pharmacology.Current research in pharmacology and drug discovery · 2024
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Guidelines on the use of sex and gender in cardiovascular research.American journal of physiology. Heart and circulatory physiology · 2024
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Angiotensin II and ATInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2022
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Male bias in ACE2 basic science research: missed opportunity for discovery in the time of COVID-19.American journal of physiology. Regulatory, integrative and comparative physiology · 2021
    Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Kathryn Sandberg*Center for the Study of Sex Differences in Health, Aging and Disease and Division of Nephrology and Hypertension, Department of Medicine, and Division of Endocrinology and Metabolism, Department of Medicine, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, USA; Georgetown-Howard Universities Center for Clinical and Translational Science, Washington, DC, USA; and MedStar Health Research Institute, Hyattsville, Maryland, USA sandberg@georgetown.edu.
Jason G Umans*Center for the Study of Sex Differences in Health, Aging and Disease and Division of Nephrology and Hypertension, Department of Medicine, and Division of Endocrinology and Metabolism, Department of Medicine, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, USA; Georgetown-Howard Universities Center for Clinical and Translational Science, Washington, DC, USA; and MedStar Health Research Institute, Hyattsville, Maryland, USA.
Georgetown Consensus Conference Work Group

Funding

Immune Modulation of HypertensionR01HL119380 · NHLBI · GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY · PI SANDBERG, KATHRYN L · 2015 to 2018
$2.4M
NHLBI NIH HHS R01 HL119380
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) announced last May that steps will be taken to address the over-reliance on male cells and animals in preclinical research. To further address this announcement, in September 2014, scientists with varying perspectives came together at Georgetown University to discuss the following questions. (1) What metrics should the NIH use to assess tangible progress on policy changes designed to address the over-reliance on male cells and animals in preclinical research? (2) How effective can education be in reducing the over-reliance on male cells and animals in preclinical research and what educational initiatives sponsored by the NIH would most likely effect change? (3) What criteria should the NIH use to determine rigorously defined exceptions to the future proposal requirement of a balance of male and female cells and animals in preclinical studies? (4) What additional strategies in addition to proposal requirements should NIH use to reduce the overreliance of male cells and animals in preclinical research? The resulting consensus presented herein includes input from researchers not only from diverse disciplines of basic and translational science including biology, cell and molecular biology, biochemistry, physiology, pharmacology, neuroscience, cardiology, endocrinology, nephrology, psychiatry, and obstetrics and gynecology, but also from recognized experts in publishing, industry, advocacy, science policy, clinical medicine, and population health. We offer our recommendations to aid the NIH as it selects, implements, monitors, and optimizes strategies to correct the over-reliance on male cells and animals in preclinical research.

Indexed as

Disease Models, AnimalSex CharacteristicsAnimal ExperimentationAnimalsFemaleGuidelines as TopicHumansMaleNational Institutes of Health (U.S.)Research DesignResearch SubjectsSex FactorsTranslational Research, BiomedicalUnited Statesgenderover-reliancesex biassex differencessexual dimorphism

Identifiers

PMID25713032
PMCPMC6137686

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 OpenQuestion graph.