Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25547788›Full record

ReviewInfection and immunity2015

Monkey models of tuberculosis: lessons learned.

Juliet C Peña, Wen-Zhe Ho

Open access · bronzeAbstract readHistorical ArticleReview
In one paragraph

Review in Infection and immunity, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 50 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
50citing papers in PubMed
5.2field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

50 citing papers in PubMed, 88 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Journal of bacteriology · 2026
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Methods and Models for StudyingInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2024
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Animals in Respiratory Research.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024
    Review
  10. Case report: Discovery of tuberculosis caused byFrontiers in veterinary science · 2024
    Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Animal models for COVID-19 and tuberculosis.Frontiers in immunology · 2023
    Review
  16. Microorganisms · 2022
    Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  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

2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Juliet C PeñaDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Temple University School of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
Wen-Zhe HoAnimal Biosafety Level III Laboratory at the Center for Animal Experiment, State Key Laboratory of Virology, Wuhan University, Wuhan, China Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Temple University School of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA wenzheho@temple.edu.
Temple University · USWuhan University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The use of animal models has been invaluable for studying the pathogenesis of Mycobacterium tuberculosis infection, as well as for testing the efficacy of vaccines and drug regimens for tuberculosis. Among the applied animal models, nonhuman primates, particularly macaques, share the greatest anatomical and physiological similarities with humans. As such, macaque models have been used for investigating tuberculosis pathogenesis and preclinical testing of drugs and vaccines. This review focuses on published major studies which illustrate how the rhesus and cynomolgus macaques have enriched and may continue to advance the field of global tuberculosis research.

Indexed as

AnimalsDisease Models, AnimalHistory, 20th CenturyHistory, 21st CenturyHumansLatent TuberculosisMacaca fascicularisMacaca mulattaMycobacterium tuberculosisSpecies SpecificityTuberculosis, PulmonaryTuberculosis VaccinesTuberculosis Vaccines

Identifiers

PMID25547788
PMCPMC4333441
OpenAlexW2141699487

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.