Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22679124›Full record

ReviewNeuro-oncology2012

In vivo models of primary brain tumors: pitfalls and perspectives.

Peter C Huszthy, Inderjit Daphu, Simone P Niclou, Daniel Stieber, Janice M Nigro, Per Ø Sakariassen, Hrvoje Miletic, Frits Thorsen, Rolf Bjerkvig

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Neuro-oncology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 157 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
157citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

157 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Modeling pediatric brain tumors with human stem cells.Frontiers in cellular neuroscience · 2026
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

97 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

9 authors.

Peter C HuszthyNorLux, Neuro-Oncology Laboratory, Department of Biomedicine, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway.
Inderjit Daphu
Simone P Niclou
Daniel Stieber
Janice M Nigro
Per Ø Sakariassen
Hrvoje Miletic
Frits Thorsen
Rolf Bjerkvig

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Animal modeling for primary brain tumors has undergone constant development over the last 60 years, and significant improvements have been made recently with the establishment of highly invasive glioblastoma models. In this review we discuss the advantages and pitfalls of model development, focusing on chemically induced models, various xenogeneic grafts of human cell lines, including stem cell-like cell lines and biopsy spheroids. We then discuss the development of numerous genetically engineered models available to study mechanisms of tumor initiation and progression. At present it is clear that none of the current animal models fully reflects human gliomas. Yet, the various model systems have provided important insight into specific mechanisms of tumor development. In particular, it is anticipated that a combined comprehensive knowledge of the various models currently available will provide important new knowledge on target identification and the validation and development of new therapeutic strategies.

Indexed as

Brain NeoplasmsDisease Models, AnimalGlioblastomaAnimalsHumans

Identifiers

PMID22679124
PMCPMC3408261

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.