ArticleJOR spine2025
Biological Sex Is Under-Reported in Cartilage-Related Preclinical Research: A Cross-Sectional Analysis.
Article in JOR spine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Glucose concentration modulates bovine intervertebral disc response under physiological loading.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2026Article
- Biological Sex Is Under-Reported in Cartilage-Related Preclinical Research: A Cross-Sectional Analysis.JOR spine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Intervertebral disc degeneration (IDD) and osteoarthritis (OA) share many similarities in the molecular processes involved in the onset and progression of these musculoskeletal pathologies. Biological sex is a risk factor for both conditions. Sex bias in orthopedic preclinical research affects knowledge, reproducibility, and translational aspects of basic research. This article aims to provide a comprehensive overview of how donor sex is reported in IDD and OA preclinical research using human or animal samples and in vivo models. Methods: We performed a cross-sectional study, searching original articles from journals with the highest impact factor in the field, to determine: (i) whether they report donor sex, and if so, whether they include this data in the analysis; and (ii) whether journals have requirements for sex reporting. Results: Our research has four main outcomes. First, donor sex was reported in only 61.9% of the 284 cases examined. Second, among the studies where sex was reported (176), samples were predominantly from only male donors or animals (56%). Moreover, sex was rarely incorporated as a variable in outcome analysis (3.4% of cases). Finally, although 14 out of 23 journals stipulated sex reporting requirements, 37.7% of papers published in these journals failed to report donor sex. Conclusions: Our results provide evidence for the under-reporting of sample donor sex in OA and IDD research, which may contribute to the poor translation to clinical efficacy and the replication crisis. Our findings could guide journal policies, institutional guidelines for preclinical research, and funder requirements.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.