Evidence map›Paper›PMID 16761976›Full record

ArticleJournal of anatomy2006

An allometric analysis of the number of muscle spindles in mammalian skeletal muscles.

R W Banks

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of anatomy, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 78 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
78citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

78 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. The evolution of muscle spindles.Experimental physiology · 2025
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

18 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

R W BanksSchool of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, University of Durham, UK. r.w.banks@durham.ac.uk

Funding

Medical Research Council G0601253
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

An allometric analysis of the number of muscle spindles in relation to muscle mass in mammalian (mouse, rat, guinea-pig, cat, human) skeletal muscles is presented. It is shown that the trend to increasing number as muscle mass increases follows an isometric (length) relationship between species, whereas within a species, at least for the only essentially complete sample (human), the number of spindles scales, on average, with the square root rather than the cube root of muscle mass. An attempt is made to reconcile these apparently discrepant relationships. Use of the widely accepted spindle density (number of spindles g(-1) of muscle) as a measure of relative abundance of spindles in different muscles is shown to be grossly misleading. It is replaced with the residuals of the linear regression of ln spindle number against ln muscle mass. Significant differences in relative spindle abundance as measured by residuals were found between regional groups of muscles: the greatest abundance is in axial muscles, including those concerned with head position, whereas the least is in muscles of the shoulder girdle. No differences were found between large and small muscles operating in parallel, or between antigravity and non-antigravity muscles. For proximal vs. distal muscles, spindles were significantly less abundant in the hand than the arm, but there was no difference between the foot and the leg.

Indexed as

AdultAnimalsCatsForelimbGuinea PigsHindlimbHumansInfant, NewbornMiceModels, BiologicalMuscle, SkeletalMuscle SpindlesNeck MusclesRatsRegression AnalysisSpecies Specificity

Identifiers

PMID16761976
PMCPMC2100235

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.