Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35859135›Full record

ReviewNature protocols2022

The cell-line-derived subcutaneous tumor model in preclinical cancer research.

Stephen M Stribbling, Anderson J Ryan

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nature protocols, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 66 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
66citing papers in PubMed
7.6field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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

66 citing papers in PubMed, 80 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Establishment and characterization of a testicular yolk sac tumor PDX model.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2026
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

6 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Stephen M StribblingDepartment of Oncology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. stephen.stribbling@oncology.ox.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6820-4630
Anderson J RyanDepartment of Oncology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. anderson.ryan@oncology.ox.ac.uk.
University of Oxford · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Tumor-bearing experimental animals are essential for preclinical cancer drug development. A broad range of tumor models is available, with the simplest and most widely used involving a tumor of mouse or human origin growing beneath the skin of a mouse: the subcutaneous tumor model. Here, we outline the different types of in vivo tumor model, including some of their advantages and disadvantages and how they fit into the drug-development process. We then describe in more detail the subcutaneous tumor model and key steps needed to establish it in the laboratory, namely: choosing the mouse strain and tumor cells; cell culture, preparation and injection of tumor cells; determining tumor volume; mouse welfare; and an appropriate experimental end point. The protocol leads to subcutaneous tumor growth usually within 1-3 weeks of cell injection and is suitable for those with experience in tissue culture and mouse experimentation.

Indexed as

NeoplasmsAnimalsCell Line, TumorDisease Models, AnimalHumansMice

Identifiers

PMID35859135
OpenAlexW4286005420

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.