ArticleAnimal models and experimental medicine2025
A comparative study of the established methods and evaluation of rat trauma models.
Article in Animal models and experimental medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Specific Hepatorenal Toxicity and Cross-Species Susceptibility of Eight Representative Pesticides.Toxics · 2025Article
- A comparative study of the established methods and evaluation of rat trauma models.Animal models and experimental medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundScientific animal models are indispensable for studying trauma repair. This work aimed at establishing a more scientific rat trauma model by studying different rat trauma models caused by different trauma numbers, locations, and trauma attachment tension unloaders and rat age.
methodsA four-trauma self-upper, lower, left and right control model; a two-trauma self-trauma bare and ring control model; and a young and old rat trauma model were created to evaluate the condition of these traumas.
resultsIn the four-trauma self-control model, the healing status of the upper proximal cephalic trauma was better than that of the lower proximal caudal trauma, whereas there was no significant difference between the left and right trauma. The healing rate and postwound condition of the trauma with a ring control in the two-trauma model were better than those of the bare side. The healing speed of the old rats was slower, and the amount of extracellular matrix in the subcutaneous tissue after healing was significantly lower than that of the young rats.
conclusionThe double trauma with a ring is a more scientific and reasonable experimental model. There is a significant difference between young and old rats in the wound healing process. Therefore, the appropriate age of the rats should be selected according to the main age range of the patients with similar conditions in the clinical setting being mimicked.
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.