Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42768488›Full record

ReviewAnimal models and experimental medicine2026

Animal stroke models and outcome evaluation: A review.

Solsa Cariba, Helen M Atkinson, Anthony K C Chan

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Animal models and experimental medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors.

Solsa CaribaDepartment of Biochemistry and Biomedical Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0006-4338-822X
Helen M AtkinsonThrombosis and Atherosclerosis Research Institute, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Anthony K C ChanThrombosis and Atherosclerosis Research Institute, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1551-3995

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Stroke is among the leading causes of death and disability worldwide, and despite extensive research, prevalence is increasing. This has been partly attributed to systemic flaws in experimental design principles in studies involving stroke, and much work has been done to improve the standards of study design. In this article, different animal models mimicking ischemic and hemorrhagic stroke will be reviewed. Historical models will be discussed, as well as the more commonly employed modern techniques, such as thromboembolic occlusion and intraluminal filament occlusion models. This will be followed by a discussion of the selection of species for experimental animals, including the pros and cons of each. The various criteria used as metrics for evaluating post-stroke outcomes will also be reviewed, including but not limited to sensorimotor and cognitive impairment. Techniques for the evaluation of molecular, cellular, and hematological phenotypes will also be reviewed, including but not limited to in vitro and ex vivo cell culture, co-culture, and RNA/protein expression assays. Finally, a selection of key criteria and factors which have been historically neglected will be discussed, such as age and sex.

Indexed as

animal modelsoutcome assessmentreviewstroke

Identifiers

PMID42768488
PMCPMC13594408

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.