Specification of subject sex in oncology-related animal studies

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

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Background: Growing 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. Methods: We selected five oncology journals included in the Scientific Citation Index (SCI) based on impact factors. We identified preclinical investigations with in vivo mouse experiments published in 2015 for inclusion in our study sample. We classified each article by whether or not it reported test subject sex, and by which sex was included. We also recorded whether there were justifications for using one particular sex in single-sex studies (e.g., anatomical reasons) and whether sex-based analyses were conducted for both-sex studies. Results: We 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. Conclusions: Many 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.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)178-184
Number of pages7
JournalAcute and Critical Care
Volume33
Issue number3
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2018 Jan 1

Fingerprint

Animal Distribution
Research Personnel
Sex Distribution
Data Mining
Sex Ratio
Research
Sex Characteristics

Keywords

  • Animal experimentation
  • Bias
  • Data accuracy
  • Data curation
  • Research design
  • Research subjects

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine
  • Critical Care

Cite this

Specification of subject sex in oncology-related animal studies. / Lee, Sukyo; Kim, Won Jun; Jeon, Yeong; Lim, Choon Hak; Sun, Kyung.

In: Acute and Critical Care, Vol. 33, No. 3, 01.01.2018, p. 178-184.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Lee, Sukyo ; Kim, Won Jun ; Jeon, Yeong ; Lim, Choon Hak ; Sun, Kyung. / Specification of subject sex in oncology-related animal studies. In: Acute and Critical Care. 2018 ; Vol. 33, No. 3. pp. 178-184.
@article{4f80ad96b3d54d3a984d8c4733db483c,
title = "Specification of subject sex in oncology-related animal studies",
abstract = "Background: Growing 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. Methods: We selected five oncology journals included in the Scientific Citation Index (SCI) based on impact factors. We identified preclinical investigations with in vivo mouse experiments published in 2015 for inclusion in our study sample. We classified each article by whether or not it reported test subject sex, and by which sex was included. We also recorded whether there were justifications for using one particular sex in single-sex studies (e.g., anatomical reasons) and whether sex-based analyses were conducted for both-sex studies. Results: We 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. Conclusions: Many 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.",
keywords = "Animal experimentation, Bias, Data accuracy, Data curation, Research design, Research subjects",
author = "Sukyo Lee and Kim, {Won Jun} and Yeong Jeon and Lim, {Choon Hak} and Kyung Sun",
year = "2018",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.4266/acc.2017.00444",
language = "English",
volume = "33",
pages = "178--184",
journal = "Acute and Critical Care",
issn = "2586-6052",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Specification of subject sex in oncology-related animal studies

AU - Lee, Sukyo

AU - Kim, Won Jun

AU - Jeon, Yeong

AU - Lim, Choon Hak

AU - Sun, Kyung

PY - 2018/1/1

Y1 - 2018/1/1

N2 - Background: Growing 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. Methods: We selected five oncology journals included in the Scientific Citation Index (SCI) based on impact factors. We identified preclinical investigations with in vivo mouse experiments published in 2015 for inclusion in our study sample. We classified each article by whether or not it reported test subject sex, and by which sex was included. We also recorded whether there were justifications for using one particular sex in single-sex studies (e.g., anatomical reasons) and whether sex-based analyses were conducted for both-sex studies. Results: We 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. Conclusions: Many 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.

AB - Background: Growing 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. Methods: We selected five oncology journals included in the Scientific Citation Index (SCI) based on impact factors. We identified preclinical investigations with in vivo mouse experiments published in 2015 for inclusion in our study sample. We classified each article by whether or not it reported test subject sex, and by which sex was included. We also recorded whether there were justifications for using one particular sex in single-sex studies (e.g., anatomical reasons) and whether sex-based analyses were conducted for both-sex studies. Results: We 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. Conclusions: Many 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.

KW - Animal experimentation

KW - Bias

KW - Data accuracy

KW - Data curation

KW - Research design

KW - Research subjects

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85072729454&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85072729454&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.4266/acc.2017.00444

DO - 10.4266/acc.2017.00444

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85072729454

VL - 33

SP - 178

EP - 184

JO - Acute and Critical Care

JF - Acute and Critical Care

SN - 2586-6052

IS - 3

ER -