Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31723882›Full record

ArticleAcute and critical care2018

Specification of Subject Sex in Oncology-Related Animal Studies.

Sukyo Lee, Won Jun Kim, Yeong Jeon, Choon Hak Lim, Kyung Sun

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Acute and critical care, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. 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

5 authors.

Sukyo LeeKorea University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Won Jun KimKorea University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Yeong JeonKorea University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Choon Hak LimDepartment of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Korea University Anam Hospital, Seoul, Korea.ORCID 0000-0003-0089-7682
Kyung SunDepartment of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Korea University Anam Hospital, Seoul, Korea.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGrowing evidence for clinically significant differences between the sexes has attracted the attention of researchers. However, failures to report a test animal sex and balance the sex ratios of study samples remain widespread in preclinical investigations. We analyzed the sex-reporting rate and sex distributions of test animals in published oncology studies.

methodsWe selected five oncology journals included in the Scientific Citation Index (SCI) based on impact factors. We identified preclinical investigations with

resultsWe surveyed a total of 382 articles. Half (50.3%) failed to report test animal sex. Among articles that did report sex, 91.7% were single-sex studies, of which 69.4% did not provide any justifications for using the sex included in the study. Relatively few studies 15.7 studies included animals of both sexes, and only 2.3 studies conducted sex-based analyses. These findings are consistent with those of previous research that used other methods to collect data from the literature such as text mining, but our analysis of the provision of justifications for using one sex versus the other is a novel feature.

conclusionsMany researchers overlook test subject sex as a factor, but test animal sex should be reported in all preclinical investigations to enhance the reproducibility of research and avoid faulty conclusions drawn from one-sided studies.

Indexed as

animal experimentationbiasdata accuracydata curationresearch designresearch subjects

Identifiers

PMID31723882
PMCPMC6786696

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.