Evidence mapPaperPMID 39587363Full record

ReviewLab animal2025

Revisited guidelines for metabolic tolerance tests in mice.

Cedric Moro, Christophe Magnan

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Lab animal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing 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

16 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
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.

Cedric MoroInstitute of Metabolic and Cardiovascular Diseases, INSERM, Team MetaDiab, Paul Sabatier University, UMR1297, Toulouse, France. cedric.moro@inserm.fr.ORCID 0000-0003-4294-0597
Christophe MagnanUnité de Biologie Fonctionnelle et Adaptative, Université Paris Cité, CNRS, Paris, France.ORCID 0000-0002-7044-2571

Funding

Agence Nationale de la Recherche (French National Research Agency) ANR-21-CE14-0057-01Fondation pour la Recherche Médicale (Foundation for Medical Research in France) EQU202303016316
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Preclinical mouse models are extensively used in biomedical research to gain insight into disease mechanisms and to test new drug treatments. Glucose and insulin tolerance tests are simple experimental tests frequently used worldwide to assess glucose metabolism in mice. Various guidelines and methodological considerations have been published to help researchers standardize procedures and optimize research outcomes. Yet, there is still important experimental heterogeneity in the way these simple procedures are performed, with no real consensus on what the best practices are to achieve high-quality research and reproducible results. Here we critically examine several published guidelines and recent technical reports on how to perform these metabolic tests in laboratory mice and discuss the influence of various confounding factors on test results. We hope this work will help scientists establish more consensual guidelines for maximizing the relevance and clinical translation of studies using mouse models in metabolic research.

Indexed as

Glucose Tolerance TestAnimalsGuidelines as TopicInsulinMiceInsulin

Identifiers

PMID39587363
PMCPMC11695259

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.