ReviewLaryngoscope investigative otolaryngology2025
Preclinical Vocal Fold and Airway Injury Models: A Scoping Review.
Review in Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Preclinical Vocal Fold and Airway Injury Models: A Scoping Review.Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology · 2025Review
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Preclinical models are necessary to study the pathophysiology of laryngotracheal diseases and novel treatments. Currently, there is no consensus on species, injury mechanics, and study duration This review provides a contemporary overview of the studies of vocal fold and laryngotracheal injuries in preclinical models. Methods: A search was performed in PubMed and Web of Science involving various animal models undergoing vocal fold, trachea, and laryngotracheal injury and/or wound healing studies from 2013 to 2023. Articles were independently screened and selected by four reviewers. Results: Of 1279 filtered studies, 197 studies were identified and categorized by species, study duration, and mechanism of injury (MOI): vocal fold stripping, intubation, lasers, microtools, scraping, and other MOIs. Within each MOI, studies were grouped by animal model, with subsections discussing tissue target, research aim, analysis method, and study duration. Leporine and rat models were the most employed animal models for both vocal fold wound healing and laryngotracheal models. Leporine studies had the broadest diversity in MOIs, with lasers, microtools, scraping, and other methods used. Comparatively, rat studies primarily utilized vocal fold stripping as a MOI, perhaps second to anatomic limitations. Larger species, specifically porcine models, were most prevalent in intubation injury studies. Ferret, mouse, and ovine models were less utilized. Study duration varied from 1 day to 3 months in vocal fold injury models and 30 min to 12 months in laryngotracheal injuries. Conclusion: This review provides a foundational framework to collate and interpret available data on preclinical vocal fold and laryngotracheal injury models to guide future study design. Level of Evidence: Five scoping review/NA.
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.