Summary
Despite proven scientific quality of menstrual blood mesenchymal cells, research and science output using those cells is still incipient and considered taboo. This study analyzes the literature of the menstrual blood mesenchymal stromal/stem cells (mbMSC) at PubMed database between (2008 – 2020) and the social attention it received on Twitter. A comparative analysis showed that mbMSC has a very small space within mesenchymal cells research (0.25%). Most first authors are women (53.2%), whereas most last authors are men (63.74%). 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.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This research is funded by Fapesp, Sao Paulo Research Foundation (SP/Brazil), process number 2018/20651-3, coordinated by D.T.M.. https://fapesp.br/ The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files, and they can also be found in .ods format at the REDU/Unicamp database: https://doi.org/10.25824/redu/NKJV2D
