Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36204385›Full record

ArticleNeurotrauma reports2022

Porcine Model of Spinal Cord Injury: A Systematic Review.

Carly Weber-Levine, Andrew M Hersh, Kelly Jiang, Denis Routkevitch, Yohannes Tsehay, Alexander Perdomo-Pantoja, Brendan F Judy, Max Kerensky, Ann Liu, Melanie Adams and 4 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Neurotrauma reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
–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.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. A surgical and functional approach to the pelvic gross neuroanatomy of the female Yucatan minipig.Annals of anatomy = Anatomischer Anzeiger : official organ of the Anatomische Gesellschaft · 2025
    Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Bridging the gap: a translational perspective in spinal cord injury.Experimental biology and medicine (Maywood, N.J.) · 2024
    Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
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

14 authors.

Carly Weber-LevineDepartment of Neurosurgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Andrew M HershDepartment of Neurosurgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Kelly JiangDepartment of Neurosurgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Denis RoutkevitchDepartment of Neurosurgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Yohannes TsehayDepartment of Neurosurgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Alexander Perdomo-PantojaDepartment of Neurosurgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Brendan F JudyDepartment of Neurosurgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Max KerenskyDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Ann LiuDepartment of Neurosurgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Melanie AdamsDepartment of Molecular and Comparative Pathobiology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Jessica IzziDepartment of Molecular and Comparative Pathobiology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Joshua C DoloffDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Amir ManbachiDepartment of Neurosurgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Nicholas TheodoreDepartment of Neurosurgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.

Funding

Medical Scientist Training ProgramT32GM136577 · NIGMS · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI ANDREA L COX · 2020 to 2026
$13.4M
NIGMS NIH HHS T32 GM136577
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Spinal cord injury (SCI) is a devastating disease with limited effective treatment options. Animal paradigms are vital for understanding the pathogenesis of SCI and testing potential therapeutics. The porcine model of SCI is increasingly favored because of its greater similarity to humans. However, its adoption is limited by the complexities of care and range of testing parameters. Researchers need to consider swine selection, injury method, post-operative care, rehabilitation, behavioral outcomes, and histology metrics. Therefore, we systematically reviewed full-text English-language articles to evaluate study characteristics used in developing a porcine model and summarize the interventions that have been tested using this paradigm. A total of 63 studies were included, with 33 examining SCI pathogenesis and 30 testing interventions. Studies had an average sample size of 15 pigs with an average weight of 26 kg, and most used female swine with injury to the thoracic cord. Injury was most commonly induced by weight drop with compression. The porcine model is amenable to testing various interventions, including mean arterial pressure augmentation (

Indexed as

animal modelpigporcineSCIspinal cord injuryswine

Identifiers

PMID36204385
PMCPMC9531891

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.