Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36994459›Full record

ReviewJOR spine2023

Preclinical in vivo animal models of intervertebral disc degeneration. Part 1: A systematic review.

Daniel L Poletto, James D Crowley, Onur Tanglay, William R Walsh, Matthew H Pelletier

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in JOR spine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing 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

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

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

5 authors.

Daniel L PolettoSurgical and Orthopaedic Research Laboratories (SORL), Prince of Wales Clinical School, Faculty of Medicine University of New South Wales (UNSW) Sydney, Prince of Wales Hospital Sydney Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0742-0695
James D CrowleySurgical and Orthopaedic Research Laboratories (SORL), Prince of Wales Clinical School, Faculty of Medicine University of New South Wales (UNSW) Sydney, Prince of Wales Hospital Sydney Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7884-4199
Onur TanglaySurgical and Orthopaedic Research Laboratories (SORL), Prince of Wales Clinical School, Faculty of Medicine University of New South Wales (UNSW) Sydney, Prince of Wales Hospital Sydney Australia.
William R WalshSurgical and Orthopaedic Research Laboratories (SORL), Prince of Wales Clinical School, Faculty of Medicine University of New South Wales (UNSW) Sydney, Prince of Wales Hospital Sydney Australia.
Matthew H PelletierSurgical and Orthopaedic Research Laboratories (SORL), Prince of Wales Clinical School, Faculty of Medicine University of New South Wales (UNSW) Sydney, Prince of Wales Hospital Sydney Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1643-6696

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Intervertebral disc degeneration (IVDD), a widely recognized cause of lower back pain, is the leading cause of disability worldwide. A myriad of preclinical in vivo animal models of IVDD have been described in the literature. There is a need for critical evaluation of these models to better inform researchers and clinicians to optimize study design and ultimately, enhance experimental outcomes. The purpose of this study was to conduct an extensive systematic literature review to report the variability of animal species, IVDD induction method, and experimental timepoints and endpoints used in in vivo IVDD preclinical research. A systematic literature review of peer-reviewed manuscripts featured on PubMed and EMBASE databases was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Studies were included if they reported an in vivo animal model of IVDD and included details of the species used, how disc degeneration was induced, and the experimental endpoints used for analysis. Two-hundred and fifty-nine (259) studies were reviewed. The most common species, IVDD induction method and experimental endpoint used was rodents(140/259, 54.05%), surgery (168/259, 64.86%) and histology (217/259, 83.78%), respectively. Experimental timepoint varied greatly between studies, ranging from 1 week (dog and rodent models), to >104 weeks in dog, horse, monkey, rabbit, and sheep models. The two most common timepoints used across all species were 4 weeks (49 manuscripts) and 12 weeks (44 manuscripts). A comprehensive discussion of the species, methods of IVDD induction and experimental endpoints is presented. There was great variability across all categories: animal species, method of IVDD induction, timepoints and experimental endpoints. While no animal model can replicate the human scenario, the most appropriate model should be selected in line with the study objectives to optimize experimental design, outcomes and improve comparisons between studies.

Indexed as

animal modelsdisc diseaseintervertebral discintervertebral disc degenerationlower back painpreclinicalspinespine research

Identifiers

PMID36994459
PMCPMC10041387

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.