Evidence Hub

The Effects of Biological Sex on Sepsis Treatments in Animal Models: A Systematic Review and a Narrative Elaboration on Sex- and Gender-Dependent Differences in Sepsis

Meng-Qi Zhang, J. Montroy, Rahul Sharma, D. Fergusson, A. Mendelson, Kimberly F. Macala, Stephane L. Bourque, J. Schlechte et al.

Critical Care Explorations, 2021

21 citations

Abstract

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text. OBJECTIVES: Preclinical studies provide an opportunity to evaluate the relationship between sex and sepsis, and investigate underlying mechanisms in a controlled experimental environment. The objective of our systematic review was to assess the impact of biological sex on treatment response to fluid and antibiotic therapy in animal models of sepsis. Furthermore, we provide a narrative elaboration of sex-dependent differences in preclinical models of sepsis. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE and Embase were searched from inception to March 16, 2020. STUDY SELECTION: All studies reporting sex-stratified data comparing antibiotics and/or fluid resuscitation with a placebo or no treatment arm in an in vivo model of sepsis were included. DATA EXTRACTION: Outcomes of interest were mortality (primary) and organ dysfunction (secondary). Risk of bias was assessed. Study selection and data extraction were conducted independently and in duplicate. DATA SYNTHESIS: The systematic search returned 2,649 unique studies, and two met inclusion criteria. Both studies used cecal ligation and puncture models with imipenem/cilastatin antibiotics. No eligible studies investigated fluids. In one study, antibiotic therapy significantly reduced mortality in male, but not female, animals. The other study reported no sex differences in organ dysfunction. Both studies were deemed to be at a high overall risk of bias. CONCLUSIONS: There is a remarkable and…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a systematic review, done in animal, not in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free