ArticleFrontiers in immunology2022
A novel model of urosepsis in rats developed by injection of Escherichia coli into the renal pelvis.
Article in Frontiers in immunology, 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Butyrate mitigates multi-organ damage in urosepsis: associated changes in the renal NOX4/ROS/NF-κB axis and gut microbiota.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2026Article
- The potential role of mesenchymal stem cells enhanced with melatonin in renal damage induced experimentally by cecal ligation and puncture in rats.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Article
- Leveraging laboratory biomarkers to predict urosepsis after upper urinary tract stone surgery: an explainable machine learning approach.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2025Article
- TR4 worsen urosepsis by regulating GSDMD.European journal of medical research · 2024Article
- Article
- Dynamics of Urinary Extracellular DNA in Urosepsis.Biomolecules · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Despite extensive research, urosepsis remains a life-threatening, high-mortality disease. Currently, animal models of urosepsis widely accepted by investigators are very scarce. This study aimed to establish a standardized and reproducible model of urosepsis in rats. Forty adult Wistar rats were randomly divided into four groups according to the concentration of injected E. coli suspensions: Sham, Sep 3×, Sep 6×, and Sep 12×. Because the ureter is so thin and fragile, no conventional needle can be inserted into the ureter, which is probably why rats are rarely used to develop models of urosepsis. To solve this problem, the left ureter was ligated in the first procedure. After 24 hours, the left ureter above the ligation was significantly dilated, then saline or different concentrations of E. coli at 3 ml/kg were injected into the left renal pelvis using a 30G needle. The left ureter was subsequently ligated again at a distance of 1 cm from the renal hilum to maintain high pressure in the renal pelvis. Following injection of E. coli or saline for 24 h, three rats from each group were sacrificed and their organs (lung, liver, and right kidney) were collected. In contrast, the remaining seven rats continued to be observed for survival. At 10 days after E. coli injection, rats in the sep12× group had a higher mortality rate (100%) compared to the sep3× group (28.6%) or the sep6× group (71.4%). The significant changes in peripheral blood WBC count, serum IL-6 and TNF-α levels were also in the sep12× group. In addition, rats in the sepsis group showed multi-organ dysfunction, including damage to the lungs, liver, and kidneys. The establishment of a standardized rat model of urosepsis may be of great value for studying the pathophysiological of urosepsis.
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.