Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20860657›Full record

ReviewBritish journal of pharmacology2010

Refinement, reduction and replacement approaches to in vivo cardiovascular research.

Michael Emerson

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in British journal of pharmacology, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 42% of its field
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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
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 at 1 institution in 2 countries.

Michael EmersonNational Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College London, London, UK. m.emerson@imperial.ac.uk
Lung Institute · US

Funding

British Heart FoundationNational Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research G0900732/1Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In this review, the justification and benefits of refinement, reduction and replacement (3Rs) approaches to cardiovascular research are examined using the field of platelet biology and arterial thrombosis as an example. Arterial thrombosis is a platelet-driven condition and platelets are regulated by autologous signals, but also by external factors such as the vascular endothelium. In vitro assays using isolated platelets therefore poorly reflect in vivo platelet function and human disease. As a consequence, animal models, including mouse models, are frequently used. In particular, models of thromboembolic mortality have been successfully employed to determine the role of the vascular endothelium in regulating platelet function and thrombosis in vivo. Such models raise both scientific and ethical concerns and have recently been refined permitting the use of fewer mice at a lower severity level. These refinements have been scientifically beneficial in permitting analysis of the development and progression of thrombotic diseases and in improving our understanding of the role of the vascular endothelium in regulating platelet function and thrombosis. For many, the ultimate goal in 3Rs-driven science is replacement of animal models with non-animal alternatives; this is exemplified, in the platelet field, by the development of in vitro flow systems. The development of 3Rs approaches to cardiovascular research is shown to have led to improved scientific models. Further characterization and use of these models will likely contribute to increased understanding of thrombotic disease processes and facilitate drug development in the cardiovascular field.

Indexed as

AnimalsAnimal Testing AlternativesBlood PlateletsCardiovascular DiseasesDisease Models, AnimalEndothelium, VascularEthics, ResearchHumansMiceResearch DesignThromboembolismThrombosis

Identifiers

PMID20860657
PMCPMC2992891
OpenAlexW1913281808

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.