Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24184743›Full record

ReviewNeuroscience and biobehavioral reviews2013

The kainic acid model of temporal lobe epilepsy.

Maxime Lévesque, Massimo Avoli

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Neuroscience and biobehavioral reviews, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 308 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
308citing papers in PubMed, 5 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

308 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. GABAFrontiers in neural circuits · 2022
    Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

248 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

2 authors.

Maxime LévesqueMontreal Neurological Institute and Departments of Neurology & Neurosurgery, and of Physiology, McGill University, Montréal, QC, Canada H3A 2B4.
Massimo Avoli

Funding

CIHR 74609-2CIHR 8109-6
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The kainic acid model of temporal lobe epilepsy has greatly contributed to the understanding of the molecular, cellular and pharmacological mechanisms underlying epileptogenesis and ictogenesis. This model presents with neuropathological and electroencephalographic features that are seen in patients with temporal lobe epilepsy. It is also characterized by a latent period that follows the initial precipitating injury (i.e., status epilepticus) until the appearance of recurrent seizures, as observed in the human condition. Finally, the kainic acid model can be reproduced in a variety of species using either systemic, intrahippocampal or intra-amygdaloid administrations. In this review, we describe the various methodological procedures and evaluate their differences with respect to the behavioral, electroencephalographic and neuropathological correlates. In addition, we compare the kainic acid model with other animal models of temporal lobe epilepsy such as the pilocarpine and the kindling model. We conclude that the kainic acid model is a reliable tool for understanding temporal lobe epilepsy, provided that the differences existing between methodological procedures are taken into account.

Indexed as

Disease Models, AnimalAnimalsEpilepsy, Temporal LobeExcitatory Amino Acid AgonistsHumansKainic AcidExcitatory Amino Acid AgonistsKainic AcidAnimal models of temporal lobe epilepsyIntracerebral administrationKainic acidSystemic administration

Identifiers

PMID24184743
PMCPMC4878897

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.