Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33825165›Full record

ReviewReproductive sciences (Thousand Oaks, Calif.)2021

Animal Models and Alternatives in Vaginal Research: a Comparative Review.

Jennifer M McCracken, Gisele A Calderon, Andrew J Robinson, Courtney N Sullivan, Elizabeth Cosgriff-Hernandez, Julie C E Hakim

Abstract readComparative StudyReview
In one paragraph

Review in Reproductive sciences (Thousand Oaks, Calif.), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing 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

26 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Integrating experimental data and mechanistic modeling to assess potential lead exposure from tampon use.Toxicological sciences : an official journal of the Society of Toxicology · 2026
    Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Fiber-Reinforced Composites for Vaginal Tissue Engineering Applications.Journal of biomedical materials research. Part A · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Inflammatory landscape ofFrontiers in immunology · 2026
    Article
  9. Nanocarrier drug delivery systems for gynecological cancer therapeutics.Journal of controlled release : official journal of the Controlled Release Society · 2025
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Drug and therapeutic intravaginal delivery targeting diseases in the female reproductive tract: A mathematical modeling perspective.Journal of controlled release : official journal of the Controlled Release Society · 2025
    Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

6 authors.

Jennifer M McCracken *Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, 77030, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-9309-6192
Gisele A Calderon *Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, 77030, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-7267-8641
Andrew J RobinsonDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, 78712, USA.
Courtney N SullivanDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, 77030, USA.
Elizabeth Cosgriff-HernandezDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, 78712, USA.
Julie C E HakimDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, 77030, USA. jhakim@bcm.edu.ORCID 0000-0001-9051-1792

Funding

Hormones and Mechanotherapeutics: Restoring Altered Hyaluronan Biology in Mucosal Wound Healing Using Vaginal Tissue as a ModelK08GM135638 · NIGMS · BAYLOR COLLEGE OF MEDICINE · PI HAKIM, JULIE · 2019 to 2023
$893k
NIGMS NIH HHS K08 GM135638
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

While developments in gynecologic health research continue advancing, relatively few groups specifically focus on vaginal tissue research for areas like wound healing, device development, and/or drug toxicity. Currently, there is no standardized animal or tissue model that mimics the full complexity of the human vagina. Certain practical factors such as appropriate size and anatomy, costs, and tissue environment vary across species and moreover fail to emulate all aspects of the human vagina. Thus, investigators are tasked with compromising specific properties of the vaginal environment as it relates to human physiology to suit their particular scientific question. Our review aims to facilitate the appropriate selection of a model aptly addressing a particular study by discussing pertinent vaginal characteristics of conventional animal and tissue models. In this review, we first cover common laboratory animals studied in vaginal research-mouse, rat, rabbit, minipig, and sheep-as well as human, with respect to the estrus cycle and related hormones, basic reproductive anatomy, the composition of vaginal layers, developmental epithelial origin, and microflora. In light of these relevant comparative metrics, we discuss potential selection criteria for choosing an appropriate animal vaginal model. Finally, we allude to the exciting prospects of increasing biomimicry for in vitro applications to provide a framework for investigators to model, interpret, and predict human vaginal health.

Indexed as

Models, AnimalVaginaAnimalsBiomedical ResearchComputer SimulationDisease Models, AnimalFemaleHumansMiceMicrobiotaRabbitsRatsSheepSpecies SpecificitySwineSwine, MiniatureEstrusVaginal microbiomeVaginal tissue model

Identifiers

PMID33825165
PMCPMC8204935

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.