ArticleScientific reports2020
Different storage times and their effect on the bending load to failure testing of murine bone tissue.
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.
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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.