Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33273909›Full record

ReviewNeural plasticity2020

Comparison of Different In Vivo Animal Models of Brachial Plexus Avulsion and Its Application in Pain Study.

Hang Xian, Rougang Xie, Ceng Luo, Rui Cong

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Neural plasticity, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Hang XianDepartment of Orthopedics, Xijing Hospital, Fourth Military Medical University, Xi'an 710032, China.ORCID 0000-0001-5256-5466
Rougang XieDepartment of Neurobiology, School of Basic Medicine, Fourth Military Medical University, Xi'an 710032, China.
Ceng LuoDepartment of Neurobiology, School of Basic Medicine, Fourth Military Medical University, Xi'an 710032, China.ORCID 0000-0003-3742-7713
Rui CongDepartment of Orthopedics, Xijing Hospital, Fourth Military Medical University, Xi'an 710032, China.ORCID 0000-0003-3152-2752
Air Force Medical University · CNXijing Hospital · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Brachial plexus injuries (BPIs) are high-energy trauma that can result in serious functional problems in the affected upper extremities, and brachial plexus avulsion (BPA) could be considered the most severe type of them. The booming occurrence rate of BPA brings up devastating impact on patients' life. Complications of muscle atrophy, neuropathic pain, and denervation-associated psychological disorders are major challenges in the treatment of BPA. Animal models of BPA are good vehicles for this kind of research. Full understanding of the current in vivo BPA models, which could be classified into anterior approach avulsion, posterior approach avulsion, and closed approach avulsion groups, could help researchers select the appropriate type of models for their studies. Each group of the BPA model has its distinct merits and demerits. An ideal BPA model that can inherit the advantages and make up for the disadvantages is still required for further exploration.

Indexed as

Disease Models, AnimalAnimalsBrachial PlexusNeuralgiaPain MeasurementPeripheral Nerve Injuries

Identifiers

PMID33273909
PMCPMC7676973
OpenAlexW3103725605

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.