Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21190398›Full record

ArticleJournal of neurotrauma2011

Craniotomy: true sham for traumatic brain injury, or a sham of a sham?

Jeffrey T Cole, Angela Yarnell, William S Kean, Eric Gold, Bobbi Lewis, Ming Ren, David C McMullen, David M Jacobowitz, Harvey B Pollard, J Timothy O'Neill and 4 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of neurotrauma, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 160 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
160citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
7.0field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

160 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 310 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Neurotrauma reports · 2025
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

100 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

14 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Jeffrey T ColeDepartment of Neurology, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Silver Spring, Maryland, USA. jeffrey.cole@usuhs.mil
Angela Yarnell
William S Kean
Eric Gold
Bobbi Lewis
Ming Ren
David C McMullen
David M Jacobowitz
Harvey B Pollard
J Timothy O'Neill
Neil E Grunberg
Clifton L Dalgard
Joseph A Frank
William D Watson
National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering · US

Funding

Intramural NIH HHS
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Abstract Neurological dysfunction after traumatic brain injury (TBI) is caused by both the primary injury and a secondary cascade of biochemical and metabolic events. Since TBI can be caused by a variety of mechanisms, numerous models have been developed to facilitate its study. The most prevalent models are controlled cortical impact and fluid percussion injury. Both typically use "sham" (craniotomy alone) animals as controls. However, the sham operation is objectively damaging, and we hypothesized that the craniotomy itself may cause a unique brain injury distinct from the impact injury. To test this hypothesis, 38 adult female rats were assigned to one of three groups: control (anesthesia only); craniotomy performed by manual trephine; or craniotomy performed by electric dental drill. The rats were then subjected to behavioral testing, imaging analysis, and quantification of cortical concentrations of cytokines. Both craniotomy methods generate visible MRI lesions that persist for 14 days. The initial lesion generated by the drill technique is significantly larger than that generated by the trephine. Behavioral data mirrored lesion volume. For example, drill rats have significantly impaired sensory and motor responses compared to trephine or naïve rats. Finally, of the seven tested cytokines, KC-GRO and IFN-γ showed significant increases in both craniotomy models compared to naïve rats. We conclude that the traditional sham operation as a control confers profound proinflammatory, morphological, and behavioral damage, which confounds interpretation of conventional experimental brain injury models. Any experimental design incorporating "sham" procedures should distinguish among sham, experimentally injured, and healthy/naïve animals, to help reduce confounding factors.

Indexed as

CraniotomyAnalysis of VarianceAnimalsBrain InjuriesCerebral CortexCytokinesFemaleMagnetic Resonance SpectroscopyModels, AnimalMotor SkillsPlacebosRatsRats, WistarRotarod Performance TestCytokinesPlacebos

Identifiers

PMID21190398
PMCPMC3057208
OpenAlexW2058035812

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.