Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37545707›Full record

ReviewOpen veterinary journal2023

Elisabete Nascimento-Gonçalves, Fernanda Seixas, Rita Ferreira, Paula A Oliveira, Bruno Colaço

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Open veterinary journal, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 18% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. 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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Elisabete Nascimento-GonçalvesCentre for the Research and Technology of Agro-Environmental and Biological Sciences (CITAB), University of Trás-os-Montes and Alto Douro (UTAD), Vila Real, Portugal.
Fernanda SeixasAnimal and Veterinary Research Centre (CECAV), Associate Laboratory for Animal and Veterinary Science-AL4AnimalS, UTAD, Vila Real, Portugal.
Rita FerreiraLAQV-REQUIMTE, Department of Chemistry, University of Aveiro (UA), Aveiro, Portugal.
Paula A OliveiraCentre for the Research and Technology of Agro-Environmental and Biological Sciences (CITAB), University of Trás-os-Montes and Alto Douro (UTAD), Vila Real, Portugal.
Bruno ColaçoAnimal and Veterinary Research Centre (CECAV), Associate Laboratory for Animal and Veterinary Science-AL4AnimalS, UTAD, Vila Real, Portugal.
University of Trás-os-Montes and Alto Douro · PT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Prostate cancer (PCa) is a prevalent malignancy affecting men worldwide. Animal models play a crucial role in studying PCa pathology and discovering novel approaches to prevent, detect and treat this disease. However, the challenge of translational medicine is the limited reproducibility and inadequate recapitulation of human conditions in animal models. Therefore, a comprehensive understanding of the macroscopic and microscopic anatomy of the prostate gland among distinct animal species is essential for better translating research findings to clinical practice. This review aims to compare and describe the macroscopic and microscopic anatomy of the prostate gland in humans, rats, and dogs, emphasizing the relevant features. Despite the anatomical differences between these species, rats are a valuable model to study human prostate diseases, once they share some features implicated in carcinogenesis in humans. Dogs, on the other hand, are considered the best model for studying PCa due to the development of spontaneous cancer with a higher incidence when compared with other animals and the development of bone metastases. Moreover, the lymphatic system and the sentinel lymph node role and mapping are similar in dogs and humans. However, it is important to recognize that no animal model can directly mimic all aspects of PCa as the human prostate is anatomically different from that of rats and dogs. Therefore, it is essential to analyze and understand the intra- and interspecies variability when translating research findings into clinical practice. This review highlights the importance of a thorough understanding of the anatomical differences between the prostate gland in humans, rats, and dogs when selecting the appropriate animal model for studying PCa.

Indexed as

Bone NeoplasmsDog DiseasesProstatic NeoplasmsAnimalsDogsHumansMaleProstateRatsReproducibility of ResultsTranslational Science, BiomedicalAnatomyDogHumanProstateRat

Identifiers

PMID37545707
PMCPMC10399646
OpenAlexW4383426557

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.