ArticleScientific reports2019
Effect of two (short-term) storage methods on load to failure testing of murine bone tissue.
Article in Scientific reports, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Protein kinase A is a dependent factor and therapeutic target in mouse models of fibrous dysplasia.Nature communications · 2025Article
- 3D printed trabeculae conditionally reproduce the mechanical properties of the actual trabeculae - A preliminary study.Heliyon · 2022Article
- Different storage times and their effect on the bending load to failure testing of murine bone tissue.Scientific reports · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Since mechanical testing of bone quality is often delayed following euthanasia, the method of bone storage is of high importance in animal studies. Different storage methods may cause a change in the properties of bone tissue during mechanical testing. Therefore, the aim of this study was to investigate the biomechanical effects of two different fixation methods for bone tissue. We hypothesized that there is a difference between the load to failure values between the two groups. The tibias of fifteen 18-week-old female C57BL/6 mice were harvested and randomly allocated to three different groups with varying storage methods: (1) frozen at -80 °C, (2) paraformaldehyde working solution, and (3) native group. A storage time of two weeks prior to testing was chosen for groups 1 and 2. In group 3, referred to as the "native group", bones were immediately tested after the harvesting procedure. The comparison of the mean load to failure of all 3 groups (group 1: 28.7 N ± 6.1 N, group 2: 23.8 N ± 3.8 N and group 3: 23.7 N ± 5.7 N) did not reveal a significant difference. There was also no difference in strength or stiffness. The findings of the present study demonstrate that the two most common storage methods, do not have an influence on the biomechanical properties of murine bone over a two week period.
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.