Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24459397›Full record

ReviewJournal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences2014

Use of rodents as models of human diseases.

Thierry F Vandamme

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 173 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
173citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

173 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Glioblastoma research on zebrafish xenograft models: a systematic review.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2024
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

113 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

1 author.

Thierry F VandammeUniversity of Strasbourg, Faculty of Pharmacy, UMR 7199 CNRS, Laboratory of Concept and Application of Bioactive Molecules, Biogalenic Team, 74 Route du Rhin, 67400 Illkirch Graffenstaden, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Advances in molecular biology have significantly increased the understanding of the biology of different diseases. However, these discoveries have not yet been fully translated into improved treatments for patients with diseases such as cancers. One of the factors limiting the translation of knowledge from preclinical studies to the clinic has been the limitations of in vivo diseases models. In this brief review, we will discuss the advantages and disadvantages of rodent models that have been developed to simulate human pathologies, focusing in models that employ xenografts and genetic modification. Within the framework of genetically engineered mouse (GEM) models, we will review some of the current genetic strategies for modeling diseases in the mouse and the preclinical studies that have already been undertaken. We will also discuss how recent improvements in imaging technologies may increase the information derived from using these GEMs during early assessments of potential therapeutic pathways. Furthermore, it is interesting to note that one of the values of using a mouse model is the very rapid turnover rate of the animal, going through the process of birth to death in a very short timeframe relative to that of larger mammalian species.

Indexed as

Cancergenetically modified animalshuman diseasesrodentstransgenic

Identifiers

PMID24459397
PMCPMC3895289

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.