Use of animal models for the study of human disease-a shock society debate.

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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

1. Premise for Standardized Sepsis Models.Shock (Augusta, Ga.) · 2019
   Article
2. An Assessment of the Academic Impact of Shock Society Members.Shock (Augusta, Ga.) · 2018
   Article
3. Alcohol-Mediated Organ Damages: Heart and Brain.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2018
   Review
4. Genomic responses in mouse models greatly mimic human inflammatory diseases.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2015
   Article
5. Location, location, location: cytokine concentrations are dependent on blood sampling site.Shock (Augusta, Ga.) · 2014
   Article
6. Abandon the mouse research ship? Not just yet!Shock (Augusta, Ga.) · 2014
   Article
7. What can we learn from elegant clinical studies?*.Critical care medicine · 2014
   Article

Corrections and comments

• Comment on
  Genomic responses in mouse models poorly mimic human inflammatory diseases.2013

Authors and funding

1 author.

Funding

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as