Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28179807›Full record

ArticleDialogues in clinical neuroscience2016

Sex influences in neurological disorders: case studies and perspectives.

Janine Austin Clayton

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Dialogues in clinical neuroscience, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 15% of its field
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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 42 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Neurobehavioral sex-related differences in Nf1Biology of sex differences · 2023
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Association of expression ofJournal of pain research · 2018
    Article
  19. Article
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

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Janine Austin ClaytonOffice of Research on Women's Health, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
Office of the Director · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Beginning in the late 1980s and early 1990s, scientists and the public alike recognized that, for too long, women had been underrepresented in clinical trials. While much progress was made in the following decades, preclinical research still often ignores sex as a fundamental biological variable. Many neurological disorders, including multiple sclerosis and migraine, show strong sex differences in incidence and disease manifestation. In this commentary, we highlight case studies of neurological disorders affecting men and women to demonstrate the need for more such studies. Research conducted in these areas so far has shed light on the underlying mechanisms of the disease and offers the promise to help develop more personalized treatments for both men and women.

Indexed as

FemaleHumansMaleNervous System DiseasesSex CharacteristicsSex Factorsbrain researchclinical trialgenderhormonesex difference

Identifiers

PMID28179807
PMCPMC5286721
OpenAlexW2988664071

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.