Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27547753›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in nutrition2016

The Use of Rat and Mouse Models in Bariatric Surgery Experiments.

Thomas A Lutz, Marco Bueter

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in nutrition, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing papers in PubMed
5.3field-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

34 citing papers in PubMed, 48 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Towards a better mouse model of vertical sleeve gastrectomy.Surgery for obesity and related diseases : official journal of the American Society for Bariatric Surgery · 2025
    Article
  3. Glucagon-Like Peptide 1 Receptor (Journal of asthma and allergy · 2025
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Thomas A LutzVetsuisse Faculty, Institute of Veterinary Physiology, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland; Centre for Integrative Human Physiology, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Marco BueterCentre for Integrative Human Physiology, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland; Department of Surgery, Division of Visceral and Transplant Surgery, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
University of Zurich · CH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Animal models have been proven to be a crucial tool for investigating the physiological mechanisms underlying bariatric surgery in general and individual techniques in particular. By using a translational approach, most of these studies have been performed in rodents and have helped to understand how bariatric surgery may or may not work. However, data from studies using animal models should always be critically evaluated for their transferability to the human physiology. It is, therefore, the aim of this review to summarize both advantages and limitations of data generated by animal based experiments designed to investigate and understand the physiological mechanisms at the root of bariatric surgery.

Indexed as

energy expenditurefood intakehumanmouseratRYGBVSG

Identifiers

PMID27547753
PMCPMC4974272
OpenAlexW2479436706

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.