ArticleSpinal cord2022
Analysis and comparison of a spinal cord injury model with a single-axle-lever clip or a parallel-moving clip compression in rats.
Article in Spinal cord, 2022. 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.
- miR-365 promotes HOXA9-mediated differentiation of mesenchymal stem cells to nucleus pulposus cells by interacting with HIF-1α.World journal of orthopedics · 2025Article
- Spinal cord injury modeling: from modeling to evaluation using rats as examples.Frontiers in neurology · 2025Review
- Plant-derived exosomes extracted fromBioengineering & translational medicine · 2024Article
- Rho Kinase Inhibitor Y27632 Improves Recovery After Spinal Cord Injury by Shifting Astrocyte Phenotype and Morphology via the ROCK/NF-κB/C3 Pathway.Neurochemical research · 2022Article
- Animal models of compression spinal cord injury.Journal of neuroscience research · 2022Review
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
STUDY
designExperimental animal study.
objectivesTo assess the feasibility of a custom-designed parallel-moving (PM) clip, compared with a single-axle-lever (SAL) clip, for the development of a compressional spinal cord injury (SCI) model in rats.
settingHospital laboratory in China.
methodsWe used a PM clip and a SAL clip with same compression rate, to develop a SCI model in rats, and set a sham group as a blank control. Within 3 weeks, each group of rats was evaluated for behavioral (Basso-Beattie-Bresnahan locomotor rating score, BBB), and electrophysiological changes (somatosensory evoked potential), and historical staining to observe the differences between the three groups. In particular, the mechanical results of the PM group were calculated.
resultsThe BBB scores for the SAL and PM groups were significantly lower than those for the sham group (P < 0.05), no significant difference between the two methods (P > 0.05), but the values corresponding to the PM group had smaller standard deviations. The interpeak-latency (IPL) was significantly prolonged (P < 0.0001) and the peak-peak amplitude (PPA) was significantly reduced (P < 0.01) in SAL and PM groups than those in the sham group, but there was no statistical difference in both IPL and PPA between the two SCI groups (P > 0.05). Histological staining showed obvious pathological changes in two SCI groups, and the shape of the lesion zone in the PM group was more symmetrical than that in the SAL groups.
conclusionsThe use of a compressional SCI model in rats with the PM clip we designed is an appropriate method to quantify the injury. The degree of the injury caused by this clip is more stable and uniform than those with classical methods.
Indexed as
Identifiers
34628476What 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.