Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25710835›Full record

ReviewNature neuroscience2015

Animal models in epilepsy research: legacies and new directions.

Brian P Grone, Scott C Baraban

Abstract readHistorical ArticleReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nature neuroscience, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 120 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
120citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

120 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. New epilepsy therapies in development.Nature reviews. Drug discovery · 2024
    Review
  19. Review
  20. Review

60 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.

Brian P GroneDepartment of Neurological Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, California, USA.
Scott C BarabanDepartment of Neurological Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, California, USA.

Funding

Using Zebrafish to Advance our Understanding and Treatment of EpilepsyR01NS079214 · NINDS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI BARABAN, SCOTT C · 2012 to 2015
$1.2M
NINDS NIH HHS R01 NS079214
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Human epilepsies encompass a wide variety of clinical, behavioral and electrical manifestations. Correspondingly, studies of this disease in nonhuman animals have brought forward an equally wide array of animal models; that is, species and acute or chronic seizure induction protocols. Epilepsy research has a long history of comparative anatomical and physiological studies on a range of mostly mammalian species. Nonetheless, a relatively limited number of rodent models have emerged as the primary choices for most investigations. In many cases, these animal models are selected on the basis of convenience or tradition, although technical or experimental rationale does, and should, factor into these decisions. More complex mammalian brains and genetic model organisms including zebrafish have been studied less, but offer substantial advantages that are becoming widely recognized.

Indexed as

Disease Models, AnimalAnimalsBiomedical ResearchEpilepsyHistory, 20th CenturyHistory, 21st CenturyHumans

Identifiers

PMID25710835

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.