Dataset Information

Gender bias and menstrual blood in stem cell research: A review of pubmed articles (2008-2020).

ABSTRACT: Despite proven scientific quality of menstrual blood mesenchymal cells, research and science output using those cells is still incipient, which suggests there is a resistance to the study of this type of cell by scientists, and a lack of attention to its potential for cell therapy, regenerative medicine and bioengineering. This study analyzes the literature about the menstrual blood mesenchymal stromal/stem cells (mbMSC) on the PubMed database between 2008-2020 and the social attention it received on Twitter. A comparative analysis showed that mbMSC accounts for a very small portion of mesenchymal cell research (0.25%). Most first authors are women (53.2%), whereas most last authors are men (63.74%), reinforcing an already known, and still significant, gender gap between last and corresponding authors. Menstrual blood tends to be less used in experiments and its scientific value tends to be underestimated, which brings gender bias to a technical and molecular level. Although women are more positive in the mbMSC debate on Twitter, communication efforts toward visibility and public interest in menstrual cells has room to grow.

SUBMITTER: Manica DT

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9754585 | biostudies-literature | 2022

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Gender bias and menstrual blood in stem cell research: A review of pubmed articles (2008-2020).

Manica Daniela Tonelli DT Asensi Karina Dutra KD Mazzarelli Gaia G Tura Bernardo B Barata Germana G Goldenberg Regina Coeli Santos RCS

Frontiers in genetics 20221201

Despite proven scientific quality of menstrual blood mesenchymal cells, research and science output using those cells is still incipient, which suggests there is a resistance to the study of this type of cell by scientists, and a lack of attention to its potential for cell therapy, regenerative medicine and bioengineering. This study analyzes the literature about the menstrual blood mesenchymal stromal/stem cells (mbMSC) on the PubMed database between 2008-2020 and the social attention it receiv ...[more]

PMID: 36531244

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundClinical research publications have become the dominant source and basis of clinical evidence-based decision-making. Exploring the type and quantity of clinical research publications in the PubMed database is useful for clarifying the changing trends of clinical research development in recent years. Therefore, a longitudinal analysis of the type and quantity of clinical research publications in the PubMed database over three decades was conducted.MethodsThe PubMed database was searched to retrieve clinical research according to the type and year of publication from January 1, 1991 to December 31, 2020. The research types were classified as primary and secondary literature.ResultsA total of 1,078,404 primary literatures were retrieved and the constituent proportions were ranked from high to low as case report/series (27.54%), randomized clinical trials (RCTs) (23.62%), cohort studies (21.05%), cross-sectional studies (17.49%), case control studies (9.15%), non-RCTs (1.01%), and pragmatic clinical trials (PCTs) (0.15%). Correspondingly, 1,302,173 secondary literatures were retrieved and ranked as narrative review (70.88%), systematic review (15.02%), systematic review and meta-analyses (13.89%), traditional meta-analyses (4.48%), expert consensus (2.31%), guidelines (1.49%), scoping reviews (0.68%), net meta-analyses (0.40%), and umbrella reviews (0.04%). The average annual growth rate for the primary literature was 10.28%, and ranked from high to low as PCTs (83.68%), cohort studies (17.74%), cross-sectional studies (17.61%), non-RCTs (12.11%), case control studies (8.86%), RCTs (7.68%), case report/series (7.51%); while that for the secondary literature was 10.57%, and ranked from high to low as net meta-analyses (48.97%), umbrella reviews (47.09%), scoping reviews (41.92%), systematic reviews and meta-analyses (33.44%), systematic reviews (33.05%), traditional meta-analyses (12.49%), expert consensuses (9.22%), narrative review (8.72%), and guidelines (2.82%).ConclusionBoth the composition and number of clinical studies changed significantly from 1991 to 2020. Based on the trend, the case report/series, case control study, and narrative review are on the decline, while cohort study, cross-sectional study, systematic reviews, and systematic review and meta-analysis literature have increased. To improve the quality of clinical evidence, we recommend RCT and cohort study give priority to access to allocated research resources in future.

Project description:BackgroundThere exists a dramatic rise in liver failure and numerous patients undergo liver transplant for life-saving reasons annually. Introducing alternatives to allo-graft transplantation is necessary due to present limitations. Recently, a noninvasive stem cell population from Menstrual blood-derived Stem Cells (MenSCs) has been identified. There is an increasing interest in the application of MenSCs in tissue engineering; however, the fact that these gender-specific stem cells are safe for use in male sex is still not well defined.MethodsIn this research, a model of acute liver failure was created in male and female immunocompetent Balb-C mice through intraperitoneal injection of Carbon tetrachlo-ride (CCl4 ) and MenSCs were transplanted intravenously 48 hrs after induction of liver injury to evaluate their therapeutic potential. All mice were sacrificed on days 1, 7, and 30 post-transplantation to examine biochemical and molecular markers and pathological appearances.ResultsResults showed the liver engraftment of MenSCs by immunofluorescence staining using anti-human mitochondrial antibody in both male and female treated groups. The restoration of serum markers of liver injury, aspartate aminotransferase and ala-nine aminotransferase, as well as expression levels of liver-specific genes, tyrosine aminotransferase and cholesterol 7 alpha-hydroxylase, were more significant in the female treated group compared with the male treated group on day 7 (p<0.05); however, after 30 days, there were no significant differences. Furthermore, hematoxylin and eosin and periodic acid-Schiff staining of liver sections demonstrated the considerable liver regeneration post cell therapy in both groups. Notably, data has shown that MenSCs could engraft into injured liver tissues and result in the same effect in the regeneration of liver function in both genders.ConclusionResults of this study introduce MenSCs therapy as an attractive alternative approach for liver repairing and regeneration which has no gender constraints.

Project description:Importance:Previous studies demonstrate sex bias in surgical research. Female participants and investigators are underrepresented in surgical scientific research. Objectives:To describe the distribution of male and female authors in 5 general-interest surgery journals, assess the association of author gender with sex bias, and explore whether investigators benefit from performing sex-inclusion research. Design, Setting, and Participants:For this bibliometric analysis, data were abstracted from 1921 original, peer-reviewed articles published from January 1, 2011, through December 31, 2012, in Annals of Surgery, American Journal of Surgery, JAMA Surgery, The Journal of Surgical Research, and Surgery. Excluded articles pertained to a sex-specific disease or did not report the number of study participants. An additional 119 articles contained gender-ambiguous author names and were omitted. Data were analyzed from April to June 2017. Main Outcomes and Measures:Male and female first and senior authors, number of female and male participants in each study, surgical specialty, and number of citations received per article. Results:Of the 3604 authors of 1802 articles included in this study, 2791 first and senior authors (77.4%) were male and 813 (22.6%) were female. The prevalence of male and female authors was consistent across all 5 journals and among clinical and basic science research. Articles by female authors included a higher median number of female study participants compared with their male counterparts (27.5 vs 16.0; P = .01), but sex matched the inclusion of participants less frequently (36% vs 45%; P = .001). No sex-based differences occurred between male and female authors in reporting, statistical analysis, and discussion of the data or in the number of citations received. Compared with studies that did not report, analyze, or discuss data by sex, studies that performed sex-specific data reporting yielded a mean of 2.8 more citations (95% CI, 1.2-4.4; P = .001); those that performed statistical analysis, a mean of 3.5 more citations (95% CI, 1.8-5.1; P = .001); and those that discussed the data, a mean of 2.6 more citations (95% CI, 0.7-4.5; P = .001). Articles with a higher percentage of sex matching of participants also received more citations, with an increase of 1 citation per 4.8% (95% CI, 2.0%-7.7%; P = .001) increase in percentage of sex matching. Conclusions and Relevance:Sex bias in surgical research is prevalent among male and female authors; however, female authors included proportionally more female participants in their studies compared with male authors. Notably, studies that addressed sex bias were rewarded by the scientific community with increased citations of their published work.

Dataset Information

Gender bias and menstrual blood in stem cell research: A review of pubmed articles (2008-2020).

Publications

Gender bias and menstrual blood in stem cell research: A review of pubmed articles (2008-2020).

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets