ArticleHeliyon2021
Refinement of the spinal cord injury rat model and validation of its applicability as a model for memory loss and chronic pain.
Article in Heliyon, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Rat Spine Fusion Models for Preclinical Research: Opportunities and Challenges.ACS biomaterials science & engineering · 2025Review
- Acid-sensing ion channel-1 contributes to the failure of myelin sheath regeneration following spinal cord injury by transcellular delivery of PGE2.Cellular & molecular biology letters · 2024Article
- Refinement of the motorised laminectomy-assisted rat spinal cord injury model by analgesic treatment.PloS one · 2024Article
- Protective Effect of Methoxsalen on Spinal Cord Injury in the Rat Model via Regulation of the PI3K/Akt Pathway.Iranian journal of pharmaceutical research : IJPRArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLaminectomy produces trauma in spinal cord injury (SCI) animal models resulting in impinging artefacts and welfare issues. Mechanizing laminectomy using a dental burr assisted (DBA) technique to reduce the impact of conventionally performed laminectomy on animal welfare without any alterations in the outcome of the model was previously demonstrated. However, further validation was necessary to establish it as an alternative in developing SCI rats as a model of chronic pain and memory loss. NOVEL
methodDBA technique was employed to perform laminectomy at T10-T11 vertebrae in rats undergoing contusion SCI as a model of chronic pain and memory loss. In a 56-day study, 24 female Wistar rats (Crl: WI) were assigned randomly to four equal groups: conventionally laminectomised, DBA laminectomised, conventionally laminectomised with SCI and DBA laminectomised with SCI.
resultsThe study revealed DBA technique to cause less surgical bleeding (p = 0.001), lower Rat Grimace Scale (p = 0.0006); resulted in better body weight changes (p = 0.0002 on Day 7 and p = 0.0108 on Day 28) and dark phase activity (p = .0.0014 on Day 1; p = 0.0422 on Day 56). Different techniques did not differ in Basso Beattie Bresnahan score, novel object recognition, mechanical allodynia, number of surviving neurons and the area of vacuolation- indicating that the new method doesn't affect the validity of the model. COMPARISON WITH EXISTING
methodsIn comparison with the conventional technique, motorised laminectomy can be a valid tool that evokes lesser pain and ensures higher well-being in rats modelled for chronic pain and memory loss.
conclusionsThe intended outcome from the model is not influenced by techniques whereas the DBA-technique is a refined alternative to the conventional method in achieving better welfare in SCI studies.
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.