Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24915840›Full record

ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2014

Comparison of pelvic muscle architecture between humans and commonly used laboratory species.

Marianna Alperin, Lori J Tuttle, Blair R Conner, Danielle M Dixon, Margie A Mathewson, Samuel R Ward, Richard L Lieber

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in International urogynecology journal, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 18% of its field
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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 37 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Animal models for pelvic organ prolapse: systematic review.International urogynecology journal · 2021
    Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Chapter 4.5: New Proposed Treatments for Pelvic Organ Prolapse.International urogynecology journal · 2026
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Current practice in animal models for pelvic floor dysfunction.International urogynecology journal · 2023
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Animal Models and Alternatives in Vaginal Research: a Comparative Review.Reproductive sciences (Thousand Oaks, Calif.) · 2021
    Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Marianna AlperinDepartment of Reproductive Medicine, Division of Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery, University of California San Diego, San Diego, CA, USA.
Lori J Tuttle
Blair R Conner
Danielle M Dixon
Margie A Mathewson
Samuel R Ward
Richard L Lieber
University of California, San Diego · USSan Diego State University · USVeterans Health Administration · US

Funding

UC San Diego Womens Reproductive Health Research ProgramK12HD001259 · NICHD · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO · PI CYNTHIA GYAMFI-BANNERMAN · 1999 to 2026
$9.1M
National Center for Muscle Rehabilitation ResearchR24HD050837 · NICHD · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO · PI LIEBER, RICHARD L., WARD, SAMUEL RICHARD · 2005 to 2014
$7.2M
Architectural Design of the Pelvic Floor Skeletal MusclesR03HD075994 · NICHD · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO · PI ALPERIN, MARIANNA · 2013 to 2014
$153k
NICHD NIH HHS K12 HD001259NICHD NIH HHS R03 HD075994NICHD NIH HHS R24 HD050837
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introduction and hypothesisPelvic floor muscles (PFM) are deleteriously affected by vaginal birth, which contributes to the development of pelvic floor disorders. To mechanistically link these events, experiments using animal models are required, as access to human PFM tissue is challenging. In choosing an animal model, a comparative study of PFM design is necessary, since gross anatomy alone is insufficient to guide the selection.

methodsHuman PFM architecture was measured using micromechanical dissection and then compared with mouse (n = 10), rat (n = 10), and rabbit (n = 10) using the Architectural Difference Index (ADI) (parameterizing a combined measure of sarcomere length-to-optimal-sarcomere ratio, fiber-to-muscle-length ratio, and fraction of total PFM mass and physiological cross-sectional area (PCSA) contributed by each muscle). Coccygeus (C), iliocaudalis (IC), and pubocaudalis (PC) were harvested and subjected to architectural measurements. Parameters within species were compared using repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) with post hoc Tukey's tests. The scaling relationships of PFM across species were quantified using least-squares regression of log-10-transformed variables.

resultsBased on the ADI, rat was found to be the most similar to humans (ADI = 2.5), followed by mouse (ADI = 3.3). When animals' body mass was regressed against muscle mass, muscle length, fiber length, and PCSA scaling coefficients showed a negative allometric relationship or smaller increase than predicted by geometric scaling.

conclusionIn terms of muscle design among commonly used laboratory animals, rat best approximates the human PFM, followed by mouse. Negative allometric scaling of PFM architectural parameters is likely due to the multifaceted function of these muscles.

Indexed as

Anatomy, ComparativeAnimalsBody WeightHumansMiceMicrodissectionModels, AnimalMuscle Fibers, SkeletalPelvic FloorRabbitsRatsSarcomeres

Identifiers

PMID24915840
PMCPMC4264598
OpenAlexW2042208403

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.