Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30541903›Full record

ReviewThe Journal of experimental medicine2019

Astrocytes and microglia: Models and tools.

Kevin A Guttenplan, Shane A Liddelow

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in The Journal of experimental medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 81 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
81citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
7.3field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

81 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 163 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Heterogeneity of Astrocyte Reactivity.Annual review of neuroscience · 2025
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review

21 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Kevin A GuttenplanDepartment of Neurobiology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA kguttenp@stanford.edu.ORCID 0000-0003-4242-4349
Shane A LiddelowNeuroscience Institute, NYU Langone Medical Center, New York, NY.ORCID 0000-0002-0840-1437
Stanford University · USThe University of Melbourne · AU

Funding

Training Program in Basic NeuroscienceT32MH020016 · NIMH · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI Justin L Gardner, Merritt C Maduke · 1997 to 2026
$16.2M
NIMH NIH HHS T32 MH020016
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Glial cells serve as fundamental regulators of the central nervous system in development, homeostasis, and disease. Discoveries into the function of these cells have fueled excitement in glial research, with enthusiastic researchers addressing fundamental questions about glial biology and producing new scientific tools for the community. Here, we outline the pros and cons of in vivo and in vitro techniques to study astrocytes and microglia with the goal of helping researchers quickly identify the best approach for a given research question in the context of glial biology. It is truly a great time to be a glial biologist.

Indexed as

Models, BiologicalAnimalsAstrocytesHumansMicroglia

Identifiers

PMID30541903
PMCPMC6314517
OpenAlexW2903846280

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.