Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27685681›Full record

ArticleJournal of visualized experiments : JoVE2016

Creation of Abdominal Adhesions in Mice.

Clement D Marshall, Michael S Hu, Tripp Leavitt, Leandra A Barnes, Alexander T M Cheung, Samir Malhotra, H Peter Lorenz, Michael T Longaker

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of visualized experiments : JoVE, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 19% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. 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

8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Clement D MarshallHagey Laboratory for Pediatric Regenerative Medicine, Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, Stanford University School of Medicine; cmarshal@stanford.edu.
Michael S HuHagey Laboratory for Pediatric Regenerative Medicine, Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, Stanford University School of Medicine.
Tripp LeavittHagey Laboratory for Pediatric Regenerative Medicine, Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, Stanford University School of Medicine.
Leandra A BarnesHagey Laboratory for Pediatric Regenerative Medicine, Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, Stanford University School of Medicine.
Alexander T M CheungHagey Laboratory for Pediatric Regenerative Medicine, Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, Stanford University School of Medicine.
Samir MalhotraHagey Laboratory for Pediatric Regenerative Medicine, Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, Stanford University School of Medicine.
H Peter LorenzHagey Laboratory for Pediatric Regenerative Medicine, Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, Stanford University School of Medicine.
Michael T LongakerHagey Laboratory for Pediatric Regenerative Medicine, Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, Stanford University School of Medicine.
Stanford University · US

Funding

Skin Regeneration: Cellular & Molecular MechanismsR01GM087609 · NIGMS · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI LORENZ, HERMANN PETER · 2008 to 2012
$1.6M
NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM087609
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Abdominal adhesions consist of fibrotic tissue that forms in the peritoneal space in response to an inflammatory insult, typically surgery or intraabdominal infection. The precise mechanisms underlying adhesion formation are poorly understood. Many compounds and physical barriers have been tested for their ability to prevent adhesions after surgery with varying levels of success. The mouse and rat are important models for the study of abdominal adhesions. Several different techniques for the creation of adhesions in the mouse and rat exist in the literature. Here we describe a protocol utilizing abrasion of the cecum with sandpaper and sutures placed in the right abdominal sidewall. The mouse is anesthetized and the abdomen is prepped. A midline laparotomy is created and the cecum is identified. Sandpaper is used to gently abrade the surface of the cecum. Next, several figure-of-eight sutures are placed into the peritoneum of the right abdominal sidewall. The abdominal cavity is irrigated, a small amount of starch is applied, and the incision is closed. We have found that this technique produces the most consistent adhesions with the lowest mortality rate.

Identifiers

PMID27685681
PMCPMC5091970
OpenAlexW2515179912

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.