ReviewJournal of medicine and life2022
Vocal fold injury models in rats: a literature review on techniques and methodology.
Review in Journal of medicine and life, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- A novel inhaled anesthesia technique for concurrent direct laryngoscopy in rats.Animal models and experimental medicine · 2025Article
- Preclinical Vocal Fold and Airway Injury Models: A Scoping Review.Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology · 2025Review
- Novel application of bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells combined with hepatocyte growth factor on subacute vocal fold wound healing.World journal of otorhinolaryngology - head and neck surgery · 2025Article
- Establishing a Mouse Model of Surgical Vocal Fold Injury.The Laryngoscope · 2025Article
- Histological characterization of rat vocal fold across different postnatal periods.Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology · 2024Article
- Development and Application of Automated Vocal Fold Tracking Software in a Rat Surgical Model.The Laryngoscope · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study reviewed the current literature on technical aspects regarding controlled vocal fold injuries in the rat model. Data from PubMed, Embase, and Scopus database for English language literature was collected to identify methodological steps leading to a controlled surgical injury of the rat vocal fold. Inclusion criteria: full disclosure of anesthesia protocol, positioning of the rat for surgery, vocal fold visualization method, instrumentation for vocal fold injury, vocal fold injury type. Articles with partial contribution were evaluated and separately included due to the limited number of original methodologies. 724 articles were screened, and eleven articles were included in the analysis. Anesthesia: ketamine hydrochloride and xylazine hydrochloride varied in dose from 45 mg/kg and 4.5 mg/kg to 100 mg/kg and 10 mg/kg. Visualization: The preferred method was the 1.9 mm, 25-30 degree endoscopes. The widest diameter endoscope used was 2.7 mm with a 0 or 30 degree angle of view. Instruments for lesion induction range from 18 to 31G needles, microscissors, micro forceps to potassium titanyl phosphate, and blue light lasers. Injury types: vocal fold stripping was the main injury type, followed by vocal fold scarring and charring. One article describes scaffold implantation with injury to the superior aspect of the vocal fold. Rats are good candidates for in vivo larynx and vocal folds research. A more standardized approach should be considered regarding the type of vocal fold injury to ease data comparison.
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.