SynthesisEuropean journal of medical research2021
Extended liver resection in mice: state of the art and pitfalls-a systematic review.
Synthesis in European journal of medical research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Integrated transcriptomic and phenotypic analyses reveal spatiotemporal variation in neutrophil Cd14 expression after hepatectomy.PloS one · 2026Article
- Role of mitogens in normal and pathological liver regeneration.Hepatology communications · 2025Review
- Extracellular NADCommunications biology · 2024Article
- Article
- Transcriptome sequencing and metabolome analysis reveal the metabolic reprogramming of partial hepatectomy and extended hepatectomy.BMC genomics · 2023Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRodent models of liver resection have been used to investigate and evaluate the liver's complex physiology and pathology since 1931. First documented by Higgins and Anderson, such models were created to understand liver regeneration mechanisms to improve outcomes in patients undergoing extensive liver resection for liver cancer or other underlying liver diseases.
methodsA systematic search was conducted using Pubmed, gathering publications up to January 2019, which engaged with the mouse model of extended liver resection as a method itself. The results of this search were filtered according to their language, novelty, and relevancy.
resultsThe Boolean search found 3741 articles on Pubmed, with 3130 publications remaining when filtered by language and the presence of a full text. In total, 21 of these publications examined the key themes of the animal model described. The mortality varied from 0 to 50% depending on the surgeon's experience and the resection method. The liver resection was mainly performed with classic sutures (14 out of 21 publications) and isoflurane was used for anaesthesia (10 out of 21 publications) in combination with analgesics (buprenorphine or ketamine/xylazine). The most used mouse strain was C57BL/6 (7 of 21 publications) which was on average 11 weeks old with a weight of 23 g.
conclusionThrough the overview, laid out in the selected publications, this paper reviews the shift of the extended liver resection model from rat to the mouse, describes the state of the art in the experimental setting, and discusses the possible limitations and pitfalls. Clearly, the extended liver resection in mice is a reproducible, practical and easy to learn method.
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.