Dataset Information

Bias in the reporting of sex and age in biomedical research on mouse models.

ABSTRACT: In animal-based biomedical research, both the sex and the age of the animals studied affect disease phenotypes by modifying their susceptibility, presentation and response to treatment. The accurate reporting of experimental methods and materials, including the sex and age of animals, is essential so that other researchers can build on the results of such studies. Here we use text mining to study 15,311 research papers in which mice were the focus of the study. We find that the percentage of papers reporting the sex and age of mice has increased over the past two decades: however, only about 50% of the papers published in 2014 reported these two variables. We also compared the quality of reporting in six preclinical research areas and found evidence for different levels of sex-bias in these areas: the strongest male-bias was observed in cardiovascular disease models and the strongest female-bias was found in infectious disease models. These results demonstrate the ability of text mining to contribute to the ongoing debate about the reproducibility of research, and confirm the need to continue efforts to improve the reporting of experimental methods and materials.

SUBMITTER: Florez-Vargas O

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4821800 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Bias in the reporting of sex and age in biomedical research on mouse models.

Flórez-Vargas Oscar O Brass Andy A Karystianis George G Bramhall Michael M Stevens Robert R Cruickshank Sheena S Nenadic Goran G

eLife 20160303

In animal-based biomedical research, both the sex and the age of the animals studied affect disease phenotypes by modifying their susceptibility, presentation and response to treatment. The accurate reporting of experimental methods and materials, including the sex and age of animals, is essential so that other researchers can build on the results of such studies. Here we use text mining to study 15,311 research papers in which mice were the focus of the study. We find that the percentage of pap ...[more]

PMID: 26939790

Similar Datasets

Project description:There are sex differences in age-related bone modifications after puberty. Androgens stimulate radial bone expansion in males, while estrogen stimulates endosteal apposition but limits periosteal expansion in females. The potential effect of age on observed sex biases in height and sex estimation models is most significantly relevant for forensic or bioarchaeological research that relies, at least in part, on hand and foot bone measurements of living or skeletal remains for purposes of identification or demographic reconstruction. This study sought to determine whether age affects sex biases in models for height and sex estimation which are based on hand and foot dimensions. The study was cross-sectional between January and June 2021 at the University for Development Studies. The study included 379 participants (male = 161 and female = 218) between 20 and 29 years. The hand length (HL), hand width (HW), foot length (FL) and foot width (FW) were measured twice from the left side using computer-assisted analysis. Univariable and multivariable discriminant and linear regression models were formulated for sex and height estimation respectively. Females were better classified than males with sex biases (male-female) ranging from −1.3% to −22.6% for all models. Models for height estimation were more precise in males (bias: 0.0–0.3 cm) than in females (bias: 0.3–1.4 cm). However, age did not have an impact on the observed sex biases. Height and sex estimation from foot and height dimensions may not need adjustment for age. This may, however, be limited to a given population and age group. Highlights • There are sex biases in the reliabilities of sex and height estimation models based on hand and foot dimensions.• While females are better classified, height estimation models were more precise in males than in females• Age may not explain the observed sex biases in hand and foot-based models for height and sex estimation in 20 to 29-year-olds• The relationship between height and dimensions of the hand and foot may not be moderated by sex in 20 to 29-year-olds• Models for sex and height estimation from hand and foot dimensions may not need adjustment for age

Project description:Reporting bias represents a major problem in the assessment of health care interventions. Several prominent cases have been described in the literature, for example, in the reporting of trials of antidepressants, Class I anti-arrhythmic drugs, and selective COX-2 inhibitors. The aim of this narrative review is to gain an overview of reporting bias in the medical literature, focussing on publication bias and selective outcome reporting. We explore whether these types of bias have been shown in areas beyond the well-known cases noted above, in order to gain an impression of how widespread the problem is. For this purpose, we screened relevant articles on reporting bias that had previously been obtained by the German Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care in the context of its health technology assessment reports and other research work, together with the reference lists of these articles.We identified reporting bias in 40 indications comprising around 50 different pharmacological, surgical (e.g. vacuum-assisted closure therapy), diagnostic (e.g. ultrasound), and preventive (e.g. cancer vaccines) interventions. Regarding pharmacological interventions, cases of reporting bias were, for example, identified in the treatment of the following conditions: depression, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, anxiety disorder, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, Alzheimer's disease, pain, migraine, cardiovascular disease, gastric ulcers, irritable bowel syndrome, urinary incontinence, atopic dermatitis, diabetes mellitus type 2, hypercholesterolaemia, thyroid disorders, menopausal symptoms, various types of cancer (e.g. ovarian cancer and melanoma), various types of infections (e.g. HIV, influenza and Hepatitis B), and acute trauma. Many cases involved the withholding of study data by manufacturers and regulatory agencies or the active attempt by manufacturers to suppress publication. The ascertained effects of reporting bias included the overestimation of efficacy and the underestimation of safety risks of interventions.In conclusion, reporting bias is a widespread phenomenon in the medical literature. Mandatory prospective registration of trials and public access to study data via results databases need to be introduced on a worldwide scale. This will allow for an independent review of research data, help fulfil ethical obligations towards patients, and ensure a basis for fully-informed decision making in the health care system.

Project description:BackgroundSystematic reviews (SRs) can help decision makers interpret the deluge of published biomedical literature. However, a SR may be of limited use if the methods used to conduct the SR are flawed, and reporting of the SR is incomplete. To our knowledge, since 2004 there has been no cross-sectional study of the prevalence, focus, and completeness of reporting of SRs across different specialties. Therefore, the aim of our study was to investigate the epidemiological and reporting characteristics of a more recent cross-section of SRs.Methods and findingsWe searched MEDLINE to identify potentially eligible SRs indexed during the month of February 2014. Citations were screened using prespecified eligibility criteria. Epidemiological and reporting characteristics of a random sample of 300 SRs were extracted by one reviewer, with a 10% sample extracted in duplicate. We compared characteristics of Cochrane versus non-Cochrane reviews, and the 2014 sample of SRs versus a 2004 sample of SRs. We identified 682 SRs, suggesting that more than 8,000 SRs are being indexed in MEDLINE annually, corresponding to a 3-fold increase over the last decade. The majority of SRs addressed a therapeutic question and were conducted by authors based in China, the UK, or the US; they included a median of 15 studies involving 2,072 participants. Meta-analysis was performed in 63% of SRs, mostly using standard pairwise methods. Study risk of bias/quality assessment was performed in 70% of SRs but was rarely incorporated into the analysis (16%). Few SRs (7%) searched sources of unpublished data, and the risk of publication bias was considered in less than half of SRs. Reporting quality was highly variable; at least a third of SRs did not report use of a SR protocol, eligibility criteria relating to publication status, years of coverage of the search, a full Boolean search logic for at least one database, methods for data extraction, methods for study risk of bias assessment, a primary outcome, an abstract conclusion that incorporated study limitations, or the funding source of the SR. Cochrane SRs, which accounted for 15% of the sample, had more complete reporting than all other types of SRs. Reporting has generally improved since 2004, but remains suboptimal for many characteristics.ConclusionsAn increasing number of SRs are being published, and many are poorly conducted and reported. Strategies are needed to help reduce this avoidable waste in research.

Dataset Information

Bias in the reporting of sex and age in biomedical research on mouse models.

Publications

Bias in the reporting of sex and age in biomedical research on mouse models.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets