Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35943733›Full record

SynthesisInvestigative ophthalmology & visual science2022

Animal Models of Choroidal Neovascularization: A Systematic Review.

Bjørn K Fabian-Jessing, Thomas Stax Jakobsen, Emilie Grarup Jensen, Sidsel Alsing, Silja Hansen, Lars Aagaard, Anne Louise Askou, Toke Bek, Thomas J Corydon

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Investigative ophthalmology & visual science, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed
7.3field-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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 36 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Subretinal AAV delivery of RNAi-therapeutics targetingMolecular therapy. Methods & clinical development · 2024
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. 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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Bjørn K Fabian-JessingDepartment of Biomedicine, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.
Thomas Stax JakobsenDepartment of Biomedicine, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.
Emilie Grarup JensenDepartment of Biomedicine, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.
Sidsel AlsingDepartment of Biomedicine, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.
Silja HansenDepartment of Biomedicine, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.
Lars AagaardDepartment of Biomedicine, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.
Anne Louise AskouDepartment of Ophthalmology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.
Toke BekDepartment of Ophthalmology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.
Thomas J CorydonDepartment of Biomedicine, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.
Aarhus University · DKAarhus University Hospital · DK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: Animal models of choroidal neovascularization (CNV) are extensively used to characterize the pathophysiology of chorioretinal diseases with CNV formation and to evaluate novel treatment strategies. This systematic review aims to give a detailed overview of contemporary animal models of CNV. Methods: A systematic search was performed in PubMed and EMBASE from November 20, 2015, to November 20, 2020, for mammalian animal models of CNV. Following inclusion by two investigators, data from the articles were extracted according to a predefined protocol. Results: A total of 380 full articles, representing 409 independent animal models, were included. Mice were by far the most utilized animal (76%) followed by rats and non-human primates. The median age of rodents was 8 weeks but with a wide range. Male animals were used in 44% of the studies, but 32% did not report the sex. CNV was laser induced in 89% of the studies, but only 44% of these reported sufficiently on standard laser parameters. Surprisingly, 28% of the studies did not report a sample size for quantitative CNV evaluation. Less than half of the studies performed quantitative in vivo evaluation, and 73% evaluated CNV quantitatively ex vivo. Both in vivo and ex vivo evaluations were conducted primarily at day 7 and/or day 14. Conclusions: The laser-induced mouse model is the predominant model for experimental CNV. The widespread use of young, healthy male animals may complicate clinical translation, and inadequate reporting challenges reproducibility. Definition and implementation of standardized methodologic and reporting guidelines are attractive.

Indexed as

Choroidal NeovascularizationAnimalsDisease Models, AnimalFluorescein AngiographyLaser CoagulationMaleMammalsMiceMice, Inbred C57BLRatsReproducibility of Results

Identifiers

PMID35943733
PMCPMC9379329
OpenAlexW4290793427

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.