Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25598784›Full record

ArticleNeural regeneration research2014

Evaluation of spinal cord injury animal models.

Ning Zhang, Marong Fang, Haohao Chen, Fangming Gou, Mingxing Ding

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Neural regeneration research, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 41 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
41citing papers in PubMed, 6 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

41 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Histological Findings After Aortic Cross-Clamping in Preclinical Animal Models.Journal of neuropathology and experimental neurology · 2021
    Pooled it
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

5 authors.

Ning ZhangDepartment of Medical Sciences, Jinhua Polytechnic, Jinhua, Zhejiang Province, China.
Marong FangInstitute of Neuroscience, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, Zhejiang Province, China.
Haohao ChenDepartment of Medical Sciences, Jinhua Polytechnic, Jinhua, Zhejiang Province, China.
Fangming GouDepartment of Medical Sciences, Jinhua Polytechnic, Jinhua, Zhejiang Province, China.
Mingxing DingDepartment of Medical Sciences, Jinhua Polytechnic, Jinhua, Zhejiang Province, China ; Institute of Neuroscience, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, Zhejiang Province, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Because there is no curative treatment for spinal cord injury, establishing an ideal animal model is important to identify injury mechanisms and develop therapies for individuals suffering from spinal cord injuries. In this article, we systematically review and analyze various kinds of animal models of spinal cord injury and assess their advantages and disadvantages for further studies.

Indexed as

animal modelestablishmentevaluationnerve regenerationneural regenerationreviewsspinal cord injury

Identifiers

PMID25598784
PMCPMC4283285

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.