ArticleThe Journal of craniofacial surgery2017
Significant Differences in the Bone of an Isogenic Inbred Versus Nonisogenic Outbred Murine Mandible: A Study in Rigor and Reproducibility.
Article in The Journal of craniofacial surgery, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Inattention to differences between animal strains is a potential cause of irreproducibility of basic science investigations. Accordingly, the authors' laboratory sought to ensure that cross-comparisons of results generated from studies of mandibular physiology utilizing the Sprague Dawley and Lewis rat strains are valid. The authors specifically investigated baseline histomorphometrics, bone mineral density, and biomechanical strength of the unaltered endogenous mandibles of the inbred, isogenic Lewis rat, and the outbred, nonisogenic Sprague Dawley rat to determine if they are indeed equal. The authors hypothesized that little difference would be found within these metrics.The authors' study utilized 20 male Lewis and Sprague Dawley rats, which underwent no manipulation other than final dissection and analysis. Ten rats from each strain underwent bone mineral density and biomechanical strength analysis. The remaining rats underwent histological analysis. Descriptive and bivariate statistics were computed and the P value was set at 0.05.Lewis rats had a significantly greater number of empty lacunae. Sprague Dawley rats exhibited a significantly greater ratio of bone volume-to-total volume, bone mineral density, tissue mineral density, bone volume fraction, and total mineral content. No differences were found during biomechanical testing.This study demonstrates that differences exist between the Lewis and Sprague Dawley rat within unaltered baseline mandibular tissue. However, these differences appear to have limited functional impact, as demonstrated by similar biomechanical strength metrics. Other specific differences not addressed in this manuscript may exist. However, the authors believe that researchers may confidently cross-compare results between the 2 strains, while taking into account the differences found within this study.
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.