Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33060685›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2020

Different storage times and their effect on the bending load to failure testing of murine bone tissue.

Thomas M Tiefenboeck, Stephan Payr, Olga Bajenov, Theresia Dangl, Thomas Koch, Micha Komjati, Kambiz Sarahrudi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
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

7 authors.

Thomas M TiefenboeckDepartment of Orthopaedics and Trauma Surgery, Division of Trauma Surgery, Medical University of Vienna, Waehringerguertel 18-20, 1090, Vienna, Austria.
Stephan PayrDepartment of Orthopaedics and Trauma Surgery, Division of Trauma Surgery, Medical University of Vienna, Waehringerguertel 18-20, 1090, Vienna, Austria.
Olga BajenovDepartment of Orthopaedics and Trauma Surgery, Division of Trauma Surgery, Medical University of Vienna, Waehringerguertel 18-20, 1090, Vienna, Austria.
Theresia DanglDepartment of Orthopaedics and Trauma Surgery, Division of Trauma Surgery, Medical University of Vienna, Waehringerguertel 18-20, 1090, Vienna, Austria.
Thomas KochInstitute of Materials Science and Technology, TU Wien, Vienna, Austria.
Micha KomjatiDepartment of Orthopaedics, Sacred Heart Hospital of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Kambiz SarahrudiDepartment of Orthopaedics and Trauma Surgery, Division of Trauma Surgery, Medical University of Vienna, Waehringerguertel 18-20, 1090, Vienna, Austria. kambiz.sarahrudi@wienerneustadt.lknoe.at.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cryopreservation is a well-established method for bone storage. However, the ideal timing of mechanical testing after sacrificing the experimental animals is still under discussion and of significant importance to the presentation of accurate results. Therefore, the aim of this study was to investigate and compare different cryopreservation durations to native murine bone and whether there was an influence on mechanical bone testing. For this study the tibias of 57 female C57BL/6 mice-18-weeks of age-were harvested and randomly allocated to one of four groups with varying storage times: (1) frozen at -80 °C for 3 months, (2) frozen at -80 °C for 6 months, (3) frozen at -80 °C for 12 months and (4) native group. The native group was immediately tested after harvesting. The comparison of the mean strength and load to failure rates demonstrated a significant difference between the storage groups compared to the native control (p = 0.007). However, there was no difference in the strength and the load to failure values of bones of all storage groups when compared against each other. Once cryopreservation at -80 °C is performed, no differences of mechanical bone properties are seen up to 12 months of storage. When actual in vivo data is of close interest, immediate testing should be considered and is preferred. If comparison of groups is required and long-time storage is necessary, cryopreservation seems to be an accurate method at present.

Indexed as

AnimalsBiomechanical PhenomenaBone and BonesCryopreservationFemaleMiceMice, Inbred C57BL

Identifiers

PMID33060685
PMCPMC7562872

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.