Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31611839›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in neurology2019

A Comprehensive Review of Experimental Rodent Models of Repeated Blast TBI.

Maciej Skotak, Molly T Townsend, Kakulavarapu V Ramarao, Namas Chandra

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in neurology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing 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

17 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Acute Treatment with the M-Channel (KNeurotherapeutics : the journal of the American Society for Experimental NeuroTherapeutics · 2023
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Improved blind tracheal intubation in rats: a simple and secure approach.The Journal of veterinary medical science · 2020
    Article
  17. 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

4 authors.

Maciej SkotakDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Center for Injury Biomechanics, Materials, and Medicine, New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, NJ, United States.
Molly T TownsendDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Center for Injury Biomechanics, Materials, and Medicine, New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, NJ, United States.
Kakulavarapu V RamaraoDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Center for Injury Biomechanics, Materials, and Medicine, New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, NJ, United States.
Namas ChandraDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Center for Injury Biomechanics, Materials, and Medicine, New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, NJ, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We reviewed the relevant literature delineating advances in the development of the experimental models of repeated blast TBI (rbTBI). It appears this subject is a relatively unexplored area considering the first work published in 2007 and the bulk of peer-reviewed papers was published post-2011. There are merely 34 papers published to date utilizing rodent rbTBI models. We performed an analysis and extracted basic parameters to capture the characteristics of the exposure conditions (the blast intensity, inter-exposure interval and the number of exposures), the age and weight of the animal models most commonly used in the studies, and their endpoints. Our analysis revealed three strains of rodents are predominantly used: Sprague Dawley and Long Evans rats and wild type (C57BL/6J) mice, and young adult animals 8 to 12-week-old are a preferred choice. Typical exposure conditions are the following: (1) peak overpressure in the 27-145 kPa (4-21 psi) range, (2) number of exposures: 2 (13.9%), 3 (63.9%), 5 (16.7%), or 12 (5.6%) with a single exposure used for a baseline comparison in 41.24% of the studies. Two inter-exposure interval durations were used: (1) short (1-30 min.) and (2) extended (24 h) between consecutive shock wave exposures. The experiments included characterization of repeated blast exposure effects on auditory, ocular and neurological function, with a focus on brain etiology in most of the published work. We present an overview of major histopathological findings, which are supplemented by studies implementing MRI (DTI) and behavioral changes after rbTBI in the acute (1-7 days post-injury), subacute (7-14 days), and chronic (>14 days) phases post-injury.

Indexed as

C57BL/6J mouseinter-exposure intervalLong-Evans ratlow-level blastpeak overpressurerepeated blast exposureSprague-Dawley rat

Identifiers

PMID31611839
PMCPMC6776622

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.