ArticleRegenerative biomaterials2016
Determining the critical size of a rabbit rib segmental bone defect model.
Article in Regenerative biomaterials, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Progress of Periosteal Osteogenesis: The Prospect of In Vivo Bioreactor.Orthopaedic surgery · 2022Review
- Effects of Combination of BMP7, PFG, and Autograft on Healing of the Experimental Critical Radial Bone Defect by Induced Membrane (Masquelet) Technique in Rabbit.The archives of bone and joint surgery · 2021Article
- An overview of de novo bone generation in animal models.Journal of orthopaedic research : official publication of the Orthopaedic Research Society · 2021Review
- Autogenous bone particles combined with platelet-rich plasma can stimulate bone regeneration in rabbits.Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 2020Article
- Guided Bone Regeneration with Ammoniomethacrylate-Based Barrier Membranes in a Radial Defect Model.BioMed research international · 2020Article
- Comparison of rabbit rib defect regeneration with and without graft.Journal of materials science. Materials in medicine · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In order to establish and standardize the rabbit rib segmental bone defect model, it is of vital importance to determine rabbit rib critical size defect (CSD). According to the general time needed for spontaneous long-bone regeneration, three-month observation period was set to determine the CSD. The rabbit rib segmental bone defects with different sizes from 1 to 5 cm with or without periosteum were performed in the eighth rib of 4-month-old male New Zealand rabbits and underwent X-ray examinations at the 4th, 8th and 12th weeks postoperatively. The gross and histological examinations at postoperative week 12 were evaluated, which showed that the critical sizes in the rabbit rib models with and without periosteum were 5 and 2 cm, respectively. This study provides prerequisite data for establishing rabbit rib CSD model and evaluating bone materials using this model.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.