Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27736744›Full record

ReviewDisease models & mechanisms2016

Rodent models in neuroscience research: is it a rat race?

Bart Ellenbroek, Jiun Youn

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Disease models & mechanisms, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 333 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
333citing papers in PubMed, 8 pooled it
–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

333 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

273 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

2 authors.

Bart EllenbroekSchool of Psychology, Victoria University of Wellington, PO Box 600, Wellington 6041, New Zealand bart.ellenbroek@vuw.ac.nz.ORCID 0000-0003-1996-4873
Jiun YounSchool of Psychology, Victoria University of Wellington, PO Box 600, Wellington 6041, New Zealand.ORCID 0000-0001-9014-8436

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Rodents (especially Mus musculus and Rattus norvegicus) have been the most widely used models in biomedical research for many years. A notable shift has taken place over the last two decades, with mice taking a more and more prominent role in biomedical science compared to rats. This shift was primarily instigated by the availability of a much larger genetic toolbox for mice, particularly embryonic-stem-cell-based targeting technology for gene disruption. With the recent emergence of tools for altering the rat genome, notably genome-editing technologies, the technological gap between the two organisms is closing, and it is becoming more important to consider the physiological, anatomical, biochemical and pharmacological differences between rats and mice when choosing the right model system for a specific biological question. The aim of this short review and accompanying poster is to highlight some of the most important differences, and to discuss their impact on studies of human diseases, with a special focus on neuropsychiatric disorders.

Indexed as

Biomedical ResearchDisease Models, AnimalNeurosciencesAnimalsBiological EvolutionBrainHumansMental DisordersMiceRatsAddictionAnimal modelsMiceNeuroscienceRatSocial behaviour

Identifiers

PMID27736744
PMCPMC5087838

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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 Socratic graph.