ReviewTrauma surgery & acute care open2025
Researcher's guide to preclinical animal models of acute extremity compartment syndrome.
Review in Trauma surgery & acute care open, 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.
- Evaluation of Emerging Technologies to Aid in the Detection and Diagnosis of Acute Extremity Compartment Syndrome.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Acute extremity compartment syndrome (CS) is a serious medical complication triggered by factors such as trauma, vascular injury, or prolonged compression, resulting in elevated intracompartmental pressure (ICP) and tissue ischemia. Diagnosis remains challenging, mainly relying on the subjective evaluation of clinical symptoms. Different animal models have been used to study pathophysiology and evaluate diagnostic and therapeutic approaches. The aim of this review is to summarize and compare different animal CS models to provide insight for the development of more authentic and clinically relevant CS model. A comprehensive search of two databases was conducted. English-language animal studies focusing on CS were included. Human studies, non-acute extremity CS, and review papers were excluded. Data extraction and analysis focused on animal species, CS models, and clinically relevant assessment methods of CS. After screening, 90 studies met the inclusion criteria. Small animal (n=36, 40%) and canine models (n=31, 34.4%) were the most used animal species. A fluid infusion model (n=48, 53.3%) was the predominant induction method, followed by the ischemia-reperfusion (n=29, 32.2%) and the internal/external mechanical pressure models. Five studies used a combination CS model to achieve a more comprehensive representation of the clinical pathophysiology. Various diagnostic modalities were employed; ICP measurement (n=74, 82.2%) and evaluation of tissue oxygenation (n=10, 11.1%) were the most frequent device-based assessments. Biomarkers assessing muscle cell damage (n=15, 16.7%), antioxidant status (n=18, 20%) and inflammation (n=16, 17.8%) were analyzed as well as physical examination (n=12, 13.3%) and neuromuscular testing (n=10, 11.1%). There are a variety of validated animal species models, which can be considered depending on the research objectives. This review helps researchers evaluate model strengths and drawbacks before deciding on an experimental design.
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.