Background: 'Patient engagement' involves meaningful collaboration between researchers and 'patient partners' to co-create research. It helps ensure that research being conducted is relevant to its ultimate end-users. Although patient engagement within clinical research has been well documented, the prevalence and effects of patient engagement in translational preclinical laboratory research remain unclear. The aim of this scoping review is to present current patient engagement activities reported in preclinical laboratory research. Methods: MEDLINE, Embase, and grey literature were systematically searched from inception to April 2021. Studies that described or investigated patient engagement in preclinical laboratory research were included. Patient engagement activities where patients (i.e. patients, family members, caregivers or community members) provided input, or consultation on at least one element of the research process were eligible for inclusion. Study characteristics and outcomes were extracted and organized thematically. Findings: 32 reports were included (30 primary studies, 1 narrative review, and 1 researcher guide). Most studies engaged patients at the education or priority setting stages (n=26). The most frequently reported benefit of patient engagement was 'providing a mutual learning opportunity'. Reported barriers to patient engagement reflected concerns around 'differences in knowledge and research experience' and how this may challenge communication and limit meaningful collaboration. Interpretation: Patient engagement is feasible and beneficial for preclinical laboratory research. Future work should focus on assessing the impacts of patient engagement in this area of research.

In this mini-review we provide an overview of sex-and gender-dependent issues in both clinical and preclinical sepsis. The increasing recognition for the need to account for sex and gender in biomedical research brings a unique set of challenges and requires researchers to adopt best practices when conducting and communicating sex-and gender-based research. This may be of particular importance in sepsis, given the potential contribution of sex bias in the failures of translational sepsis research in adults and neonates. Clinical evidence of sex-dependent differences in sepsis is equivocal. Since clinical studies are limited to observational data and confounded by a multitude of factors, preclinical studies provide a unique opportunity to investigate sex differences in a controlled, experimental environment. Numerous preclinical studies have suggested that females may experience favorable outcomes in comparison with males. The underlying mechanistic evidence for sex-dependent differences in sepsis and other models of shock (e.g., trauma-hemorrhage) largely centers around the beneficial effects of estrogen. Other mechanisms such as the immunosuppressive role of testosterone and Xlinked mosaicism are also thought to contribute to observed sex-and gender-dependent differences in sepsis. Significant knowledge gaps still exist in this field. Future investigations can address these gaps through careful consideration of sex and gender in clinical studies, and the use of clinically accurate preclinical models that reflect sex differences. A better understanding of sex-and gender-dependent differences may serve to increase translational research success.

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.