Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30025531›Full record

ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2018

Improving results in rat fracture models: enhancing the efficacy of biomechanical testing by a modification of the experimental setup.

Peter Michael Prodinger, Dominik Bürklein, Peter Foehr, Kilian Kreutzer, Hakan Pilge, Andreas Schmitt, Rüdiger V Eisenhart-Rothe, Rainer Burgkart, Oliver Bissinger, Thomas Tischer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
–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

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Shear wave propagation as a noninvasive metric of loading and microdamage in tendon fascicles.Journal of the mechanical behavior of biomedical materials · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. 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

10 authors.

Peter Michael ProdingerKlinik für Orthopädie und Sportorthopädie, Klinikum rechts der Isar der Technischen Universität München, Ismaninger Straße 22, 81675, Munich, Germany. peter.prodinger@tum.de.
Dominik BürkleinAbteilung für Fuß- und Sprunggelenkchirurgie, Klinik Volkach, Volkach, Germany.
Peter FoehrAbteilung für Biomechanik, Klinik für Orthopädie und Sportorthopädie, Klinikum rechts der Isar der Technischen Universität München, Munich, Germany.
Kilian KreutzerKlinik für Mund-, Kiefer- und Gesichtschirurgie, Universitätsklinikum Hamburg Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
Hakan PilgeOrthopädische Klinik, Universitätsklinikum Düsseldorf, Heinrich-Heine-Universität, Düsseldorf, Germany.
Andreas SchmittAbteilung für Sportorthopädie, Klinik für Orthopädie und Sportorthopädie, Klinikum rechts der Isar der Technischen Universität München, Munich, Germany.
Rüdiger V Eisenhart-RotheKlinik für Orthopädie und Sportorthopädie, Klinikum rechts der Isar der Technischen Universität München, Ismaninger Straße 22, 81675, Munich, Germany.
Rainer BurgkartKlinik für Orthopädie und Sportorthopädie, Klinikum rechts der Isar der Technischen Universität München, Ismaninger Straße 22, 81675, Munich, Germany.
Oliver BissingerKlinik für Mund-, Kiefer- und Gesichtschirurgie, Klinikum rechts der Isar der Technischen Universität München, Munich, Germany.
Thomas TischerOrthopädische Klinik und Poliklinik der Universität Rostock, Rostock, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAnimal fracture models, primarily performed in rats, are crucial to investigate normal and pathological bone healing. However, results of biomechanical testing representing a major outcome measure show high standard deviations often precluding statistical significance. Therefore, the aim of our study was a systematical examination of biomechanical characteristics of rat femurs during three-point bending. Furthermore, we tried to reduce variation of results by individually adapting the span of bearing and loading areas to the bone's length.

methodsWe examined 40 paired femurs of male Wistar-rats by DXA (BMD and BMC of the whole femur) and pQCT-scans at the levels of bearing and loading areas of the subsequent biomechanical three-point bending test. Individual adjustment of bearing and loading bars was done respecting the length of each specimen. Subgroups of light (< 400 g, n = 22) and heavy (> 400 g, n = 18) animals were formed and analysed separately. We furthermore compared the results of the individualised bending-setting to 20 femurs tested with a fix span of 15 mm.

resultsFemurs showed a length range of 34 to 46 mm. The failure loads ranged from 116 to 251 N (mean 175.4 ± 45.2 N; heavy animals mean 221 ± 18.9 N; light animals mean 138.1 ± 16.4 N) and stiffness ranged from 185 N/mm to 426 N/mm (mean 315.6 ± 63 N/mm; heavy animals mean 358.1 ± 34.64 N/mm; light animals mean 280.8 ± 59.85 N/mm). The correlation of densitometric techniques and failure loads was high (DXA R

conclusionsTotal variation observed in any trait reflects biological and methodological variation. Precision of the method hence affects the statistical power of the study. By simply adapting the setting of the biomechanical testing, interindividual variation could be reduced, which improves the precision of the method significantly.

Indexed as

Disease Models, AnimalAbsorptiometry, PhotonAnimalsBiomechanical PhenomenaBone DensityFemoral FracturesMaleRatsRats, WistarAnimal modelBiomechanical testingpQCTRat fracture studiesThree-point bending

Identifiers

PMID30025531
PMCPMC6053723

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.