Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31169198›Full record

ArticleNeural regeneration research2019

Differences in pathological changes between two rat models of severe traumatic brain injury.

Yi-Ming Song, Yu Qian, Wan-Qiang Su, Xuan-Hui Liu, Jin-Hao Huang, Zhi-Tao Gong, Hong-Liang Luo, Chuang Gao, Rong-Cai Jiang

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Neural regeneration research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Comparative transcriptomic analysis of ratNeural regeneration research · 2021
    Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Translational Genomics in Neurocritical Care: a Review.Neurotherapeutics : the journal of the American Society for Experimental NeuroTherapeutics · 2020
    Review
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

9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Yi-Ming SongDepartment of Neurosurgery, General Hospital, Tianjin Medical University; Key Laboratory of Injuries, Variations and Regeneration of Nervous System, Tianjin Neurological Institute, Tianjin, China.
Yu QianDepartment of Neurosurgery, General Hospital, Tianjin Medical University; Key Laboratory of Injuries, Variations and Regeneration of Nervous System, Tianjin Neurological Institute, Tianjin, China.
Wan-Qiang SuDepartment of Neurosurgery, General Hospital, Tianjin Medical University; Key Laboratory of Injuries, Variations and Regeneration of Nervous System, Tianjin Neurological Institute, Tianjin, China.
Xuan-Hui LiuDepartment of Neurosurgery, General Hospital, Tianjin Medical University; Key Laboratory of Injuries, Variations and Regeneration of Nervous System, Tianjin Neurological Institute, Tianjin, China.
Jin-Hao HuangDepartment of Neurosurgery, General Hospital, Tianjin Medical University; Key Laboratory of Injuries, Variations and Regeneration of Nervous System, Tianjin Neurological Institute, Tianjin, China.
Zhi-Tao GongDepartment of Neurosurgery, General Hospital, Tianjin Medical University; Key Laboratory of Injuries, Variations and Regeneration of Nervous System, Tianjin Neurological Institute, Tianjin, China.
Hong-Liang LuoDepartment of Neurosurgery, General Hospital, Tianjin Medical University; Key Laboratory of Injuries, Variations and Regeneration of Nervous System, Tianjin Neurological Institute, Tianjin, China.
Chuang GaoDepartment of Neurosurgery, General Hospital, Tianjin Medical University; Key Laboratory of Injuries, Variations and Regeneration of Nervous System, Tianjin Neurological Institute, Tianjin, China.
Rong-Cai JiangDepartment of Neurosurgery, General Hospital, Tianjin Medical University; Key Laboratory of Injuries, Variations and Regeneration of Nervous System, Tianjin Neurological Institute, Tianjin, China.
Tianjin Medical University · CNTianjin Medical University General Hospital · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The rat high-impact free weight drop model mimics the diffuse axonal injury caused by severe traumatic brain injury in humans, while severe controlled cortical impact can produce a severe traumatic brain injury model using precise strike parameters. In this study, we compare the pathological mechanisms and pathological changes between two rat severe brain injury models to identify the similarities and differences. The severe controlled cortical impact model was produced by an electronic controlled cortical impact device, while the severe free weight drop model was produced by dropping a 500 g free weight from a height of 1.8 m through a plastic tube. Body temperature and mortality were recorded, and neurological deficits were assessed with the modified neurological severity score. Brain edema and blood-brain barrier damage were evaluated by assessing brain water content and Evans blue extravasation. In addition, a cytokine array kit was used to detect inflammatory cytokines. Neuronal apoptosis in the brain and brainstem was quantified by immunofluorescence staining. Both the severe controlled cortical impact and severe free weight drop models exhibited significant neurological impairments and body temperature fluctuations. More severe motor dysfunction was observed in the severe controlled cortical impact model, while more severe cognitive dysfunction was observed in the severe free weight drop model. Brain edema, inflammatory cytokine changes and cortical neuronal apoptosis were more substantial and blood-brain barrier damage was more focal in the severe controlled cortical impact group compared with the severe free weight drop group. The severe free weight drop model presented with more significant apoptosis in the brainstem and diffused blood-brain barrier damage, with higher mortality and lower repeatability compared with the severe controlled cortical impact group. Severe brainstem damage was not found in the severe controlled cortical impact model. These results indicate that the severe controlled cortical impact model is relatively more stable, more reproducible, and shows obvious cerebral pathological changes at an earlier stage. Therefore, the severe controlled cortical impact model is likely more suitable for studies on severe focal traumatic brain injury, while the severe free weight drop model may be more apt for studies on diffuse axonal injury. All experimental procedures were approved by the Ethics Committee of Animal Experiments of Tianjin Medical University, China (approval No. IRB2012-028-02) in February 2012.

Indexed as

animal model comparisonblood-brain barrier damagebrainstem injurycontrolled cortical impactdiffuse axonal injuryfree weight dropnerve regenerationneural regenerationneuroinflammationneurological impairmentneuronal apoptosissevere traumatic brain injury

Identifiers

PMID31169198
PMCPMC6585550
OpenAlexW2947430180

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.