Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36601369›Full record

ReviewJOR spine2022

Controversies in spine research: Organ culture versus in vivo models for studies of the intervertebral disc.

Shirley N Tang, Andres F Bonilla, Nadeen O Chahine, Aimee C Colbath, Jeremiah T Easley, Sibylle Grad, Lisbet Haglund, Christine L Le Maitre, Victor Leung, Annette M McCoy and 4 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in JOR spine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Ovine models of intervertebral disc degeneration.Annals of translational medicine · 2025
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. SiACS biomaterials science & engineering · 2025
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. 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

14 authors.

Shirley N TangDepartment of Biomedical Engineering The Ohio State University Columbus Ohio USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8807-2348
Andres F BonillaPreclinical Surgical Research Laboratory, Department of Clinical Sciences Colorado State University Fort Collins Colorado USA.
Nadeen O ChahineDepartments of Orthopedic Surgery and Biomedical Engineering Columbia University New York New York USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0478-6042
Aimee C ColbathDepartment of Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine Cornell University Ithaca New York USA.
Jeremiah T EasleyPreclinical Surgical Research Laboratory, Department of Clinical Sciences Colorado State University Fort Collins Colorado USA.
Sibylle GradAO Research Institute Davos Davos Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9552-3653
Lisbet HaglundDepartment of Surgery McGill University Montreal Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1288-2149
Christine L Le MaitreBiomolecular Sciences Research Centre Sheffield Hallam University Sheffield UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4489-7107
Victor LeungDepartment of Orthopaedics and Traumatology The University of Hong Kong Hong Kong SAR China.
Annette M McCoyDepartment of Veterinary Clinical Medicine University of Illinois Urbana Illinois USA.
Devina PurmessurDepartment of Biomedical Engineering The Ohio State University Columbus Ohio USA.
Simon Y TangDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery Washington University in St Louis St Louis Missouri USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5570-3921
Stephan ZeiterAO Research Institute Davos Davos Switzerland.
Lachlan J SmithDepartments of Orthopaedic Surgery and Neurosurgery University of Pennsylvania Philadelphia Pennsylvania USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5823-6073

Funding

Resource Based Center for Musculoskeletal Biology and Medicine (Overall Application)P30AR074992 · NIAMS · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI Yousef Abu-Amer · 2019 to 2026
$6.8M
Intervertebral Disc Degeneration and Cross-Talk with the Nervous System - NOSI Diversity SupplementR01AR077678 · NIAMS · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI SETTON, LORI A., TANG, SIMON YUE-CHEONG · 2020 to 2024
$3.7M
Anti-inflammatory Cell Based Repair of Intervertebral Disc DegenerationR01AR077760 · NIAMS · COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES · PI CHAHINE, NADEEN O. · 2021 to 2025
$3.1M
Neutralizing the degenerate disc microenvironment to enhance the efficacy of therapeutic stem cellsR01AR077435 · NIAMS · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI MALHOTRA, NEIL, MAUCK, ROBERT L · 2021 to 2025
$2.7M
The role of physiologic and pathologic AGEs on RAGE signaling in IVD degenerationR01AR074441 · NIAMS · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI TANG, SIMON YUE-CHEONG · 2019 to 2024
$2.1M
Mechanobiology of Inflammation in the Intervertebral DiscR01AR069668 · NIAMS · COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES · PI CHAHINE, NADEEN O. · 2016 to 2021
$2.0M
Pathogenesis and Treatment of Bone Disease in the MucopolysaccharidosesR01AR071975 · NIAMS · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI SMITH, LACHLAN JAMES · 2017 to 2021
$1.9M
Sustained Delivery of RhoA activator for Treatment of Intervertebral Disc DegenerationR21AR080516 · NIAMS · COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES · PI BAJPAYEE, AMBIKA GOEL, CHAHINE, NADEEN O. · 2022 to 2023
$508k
Dynamic heterogeneity of nucleus pulposus cells from development to degenerationR21AR077261 · NIAMS · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI MALHOTRA, NEIL, SMITH, LACHLAN JAMES · 2021 to 2022
$391k
Bioactive Injectable Implants for Functional Intervertebral Disc RegenerationI01RX001321 · VA · PHILADELPHIA VA MEDICAL CENTER · PI Robert L Mauck, Lachlan James Smith · 2014 to 2026
–
NIAMS NIH HHS P30 AR074992NIAMS NIH HHS R01 AR069668NIAMS NIH HHS R01 AR071975NIAMS NIH HHS R01 AR074441NIAMS NIH HHS R01 AR077435NIAMS NIH HHS R01 AR077678NIAMS NIH HHS R01 AR077760NIAMS NIH HHS R21 AR077261NIAMS NIH HHS R21 AR080516RRD VA I01 RX001321
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Intervertebral disc degeneration is a common cause of low back pain, the leading cause of disability worldwide. Appropriate preclinical models for intervertebral disc research are essential to achieving a better understanding of underlying pathophysiology and for the development, evaluation, and translation of more effective treatments. To this end, in vivo animal and ex vivo organ culture models are both widely used by spine researchers; however, the relative strengths and weaknesses of these two approaches are a source of ongoing controversy. In this article, members from the Spine and Preclinical Models Sections of the Orthopedic Research Society, including experts in both basic and translational spine research, present contrasting arguments in support of in vivo animal models versus ex vivo organ culture models for studies of the disc, supported by a comprehensive review of the relevant literature. The objective is to provide a deeper understanding of the respective advantages and limitations of these approaches, and advance the field toward a consensus with respect to appropriate model selection and implementation. We conclude that complementary use of several model types and leveraging the unique advantages of each is likely to result in the highest impact research in most instances.

Indexed as

intervertebral discin vivomodelsorgan culturespine

Identifiers

PMID36601369
PMCPMC9799089

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.