ArticleClinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil)2019
The development of a mechanical device to stretch skeletal muscle of young and old rats.
Article in Clinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveHow much force is needed to stretch skeletal muscle is still unknown. The aim of this study was to develop a device that mechanically stretches rat muscle to compare the force (N) required to stretch the soleus muscle of young and aged rats and the tibio-tarsal angle joint at neutral and stretched positions.
methodsTwelve female Wistar rats were divided into two groups: a young group (YG, n=6, 311±11 g) of rats 3 months old and an aged group (AG, n=6, 351±43 g) of rats 15 months old. The left soleus muscle was mechanically held in full dorsal flexion and submitted to mechanical passive stretching: 1 bout of 10 repetitions, each repetition lasted 60 seconds with an interval of 45 seconds between repetitions, performed once a day, twice a week, for 1 week. The force required during stretching was measured by a load cell, and the tibio-tarsal angle joint was measured by photometry.
resultsThe load cell calibration showed excellent reliability, as confirmed by the intraclass correlation coefficient value of 0.93. A decrease in delta force was found in the comparison between YG and AG (0.11±0.03 N vs 0.08±0.02 N, p<0.05, repeated measures ANOVA). There was no difference between the YG and the AG in the tibio-tarsal angle at resting position (87.1±3.8° vs 87.1±3.5°, p=0.35, Kruskal Wallis) and at the end of the stretching protocol (43.9±4.4° vs 42.6±3.4°, p=0.57, Kruskal Wallis).
conclusionThe device presented in this study is able to monitor the force necessary to stretch hindlimb rat muscles. Aged rats required less force than young rats to stretch the soleus muscle, and there was no difference regarding the tibio-tarsal angle between the two groups.
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.