Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34915758›Full record

SynthesisTissue engineering. Part B, Reviews2022

Systematic Evaluation of Spinal Cord Injury Animal Models in the Field of Biomaterials.

Kest Verstappen, René Aquarius, Alexey Klymov, Kimberley E Wever, Lyan Damveld, Sander C G Leeuwenburgh, Ronald H M A Bartels, Carlijn R Hooijmans, X Frank Walboomers

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Tissue engineering. Part B, Reviews, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. [Finite element analysis of skeletal injury mechanisms in adult standing positions with both feet landed on the ground].Zhong nan da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Central South University. Medical sciences · 2025
    Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. 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

9 authors.

Kest VerstappenDepartment of Dentistry-Regenerative Biomaterials, Radboud Institute for Molecular Life Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-5116-123X
René AquariusDepartment of Neurosurgery, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-0968-6884
Alexey KlymovDepartment of Dentistry-Regenerative Biomaterials, Radboud Institute for Molecular Life Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-9096-4078
Kimberley E WeverSYstematic Review Center for Laboratory Animal Experimentation (SYRCLE), Department for Health Evidence, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-3635-3660
Lyan DamveldDepartment of Dentistry-Regenerative Biomaterials, Radboud Institute for Molecular Life Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Sander C G LeeuwenburghDepartment of Dentistry-Regenerative Biomaterials, Radboud Institute for Molecular Life Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-1471-6133
Ronald H M A BartelsDepartment of Neurosurgery, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-8638-4660
Carlijn R HooijmansSYstematic Review Center for Laboratory Animal Experimentation (SYRCLE), Department for Health Evidence, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-6435-5714
X Frank WalboomersDepartment of Dentistry-Regenerative Biomaterials, Radboud Institute for Molecular Life Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-5742-9826

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The large number of animal models used in spinal cord injury (SCI) research complicates the objective selection of the most appropriate model to investigate the efficacy of biomaterial-based therapies. This systematic review aims to identify a list of relevant animal models of SCI by evaluating the confirmation of SCI and animal survival in all published SCI models used in biomaterials research up until April 2021. A search in PubMed and Embase based on "spinal cord injury," "animal models," and "biomaterials" yielded 4606 papers, 393 of which were further evaluated. A total of 404 individual animal experiments were identified based on type of SCI, level of SCI, and the sex, species, and strain of the animals used. Finally, a total of 149 unique animal models were comparatively evaluated, which led to the generation of an evidence-based list of well-documented mid-thoracic rat models of SCI. These models were used most often, clearly confirmed SCI, and had relatively high survival rates, and therefore could serve as a future starting point for studying novel biomaterial-based therapies for SCI. Furthermore, the review discusses (1) the possible risk of bias in SCI animal models, (2) the difficulty in replication of such experiments due to frequent poor reporting of the methods and results, and (3) the clinical relevance of the currently utilized models.

Indexed as

Biocompatible MaterialsSpinal Cord InjuriesAnimalsDisease Models, AnimalRatsBiocompatible Materialsanimal modelbiomaterialsclinical translationregenerative medicinespinal cord injury

Identifiers

PMID34915758
PMCPMC9805871

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.