ReviewInflammatory bowel diseases2012
Microbial and histopathologic considerations in the use of mouse models of inflammatory bowel diseases.
Review in Inflammatory bowel diseases, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Exploratory clinical characterization of experimentally-induced ulcerative colitis nonhuman primates.Heliyon · 2020Article
- Local Mesenchymal Stem Cell Therapy in Experimentally Induced Colitis in the Rat.International journal of stem cells · 2018Article
- Spontaneous and transgenic rodent models of inflammatory bowel disease.Laboratory animal research · 2015Review
- The Altered Schaedler Flora: Continued Applications of a Defined Murine Microbial Community.ILAR journal · 2015Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Mouse models provide powerful tools to investigate disease mechanisms and are widely used in inflammatory bowel disease research. However, it is common for reports of mouse model studies to lack potentially important information about the microbial status of the mice and the method used to evaluate disease expression for statistical analysis. For example, it is common practice to state that the mice were housed under specific pathogen-free conditions but provide no further information regarding the presence or absence of organisms such as Helicobacter spp. that are known or likely to affect disease expression, thus omitting information potentially important to the expected phenotype of the mice and their responses to experimental manipulation. We therefore encourage authors to use such terms as "conventional" and "specific pathogen-free" precisely, to state the agents from which the mice are represented to be free, and to provide a brief description of the health monitoring protocol. Descriptions of histopathologic methods used to evaluate colitis in mouse models also often do not include sufficient detail to allow readers to understand and evaluate the methods; in addition, the lesions commonly are shown in photomicrographs that are too small and of too low resolution to be interpreted. Inasmuch as such methods are often the major or only source of data upon which conclusions regarding genotype or experimental treatment effects are based, the method employed should be fully described, and photomicrographs should be of adequate size and resolution to allow independent assessment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.