ReviewACS biomaterials science & engineering2025
Rat Spine Fusion Models for Preclinical Research: Opportunities and Challenges.
Review in ACS biomaterials science & engineering, 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Rodent models have gained popularity for assessing the efficacy and safety of experimental spine fusion methods in preclinical research, but variability in surgical technique, graft materials, and outcome assessment has limited standardization across studies. This review highlights key developments in rat spinal fusion models, focusing on the strengths and limitations of the surgical techniques applied and advancements in quantitative and qualitative outcome measures, aiming to identify opportunities for increased consistency in experimental designs. A comprehensive literature review was performed by using PubMed to include studies utilizing rat models for spinal fusion. Posterolateral intertransverse fusion remains the most widely used model, often employing autografts or biologically enhanced scaffolds as controls, while the Wiltse paraspinal approach is chosen when minimal invasiveness is favored. Functional fusion outcome assessments have evolved from manual palpation and traditional radiography to sophisticated microcomputed tomography (μCT) analyses along with histological scoring and serum marker analyses. Consensus biomechanical analyses of rodent spine fusion outcomes remain lacking. Emerging rodent data on the effects of pharmacologic agents, systemic conditions, and biologic implants on fusion show wide-ranging fusion rates from 0% to 100% across studies. Overall, this review points to the need for standardization in surgical technique, control bone grafts, and multimodal outcome assessment to enhance the rigor, reproducibility, and translational relevance of rat spine fusion models for the early stage research and development of novel therapeutic interventions.
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.