Home Email this page Print this page Bookmark this page Decrease font size Default font size Increase font size
Noise & Health  
 Next article
 Previous article
Table of Contents

Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
Citation Manager
Access Statistics
Reader Comments
Email Alert *
Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded18    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 14    

Recommend this journal


Year : 2017  |  Volume : 19  |  Issue : 90  |  Page : 207--212

Sex bias in basic and preclinical noise-induced hearing loss research

Department of Otolaryngology-HNS and Center for Hearing and Balance, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, United States

Correspondence Address:
Amanda Marie Lauer
515 Traylor Building, 720 Rutland Ave Baltimore, MD 21205
United States
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/nah.NAH_12_17

Rights and Permissions

Introduction: Sex differences in brain biochemistry, physiology, structure, and function have been gaining increasing attention in the scientific community. Males and females can have different responses to medications, diseases, and environmental variables. A small number of the approximately 7500 studies of noise-induced hearing loss (NIHL) have identified sex differences, but the mechanisms and characterization of these differences have not been thoroughly studied. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) issued a mandate in 2015 to include sex as a biological variable in all NIH-funded research beginning in January 2016. Materials and Methods: In the present study, the representation of sex as a biological variable in preclinical and basic studies of NIHL was quantified for a 5-year period from January 2011 to December 2015 prior to the implementation of the NIH mandate. Results: The analysis of 210 basic and preclinical studies showed that when sex is specified, experiments are predominantly performed on male animals. Discussion: This bias is present in studies completed in the United States and foreign institutions, and the proportion of studies using only male participants has actually increased over the 5-year period examined. Conclusion: These results underscore the need to invest resources in studying NIHL in both sexes to better understand how sex shapes the outcomes and to optimize treatment and prevention strategies.


Print this article     Email this article