Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 58

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 73 of the 73 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Using anesthetics and analgesics in experimental traumatic brain injury

Rowe, Rachel K., Harrison, Jordan L., Thomas, Theresa C., Pauly, James R., Adelson, P. David, Lifshitz, Jonathan·2013·Lab Animal
DOI 10.1038/laban.257PMC PMC3876742
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Valid modeling of traumatic brain injury (TBI) requires accurate replication of both the mechanical forces that cause the primary injury and the conditions that lead to secondary injuries observed in human patients. The use of animals in TBI research is justified by the lack of in vitro or computer models that can sufficiently replicate the complex pathological processes involved. Measures to reduce nociception and distress must be implemented, but the administration of anesthetics and analgesics can influence TBI outcomes, threatening the validity of the research. In this review, the authors present evidence for the interference of anesthetics and analgesics in the natural course of brain injury in animal models of TBI. They suggest that drugs should be selected for or excluded from experimental TBI protocols on the basis of IACUC-approved experimental objectives in order to protect animal welfare and preserve the validity of TBI models.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/laban.257

Cites

73 of 73 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Cited by

See all 58

Metadata

Authors
Rowe, R. K., Harrison, J. L., Thomas, T. C., Pauly, J. R., Adelson, P. D., & Lifshitz, J.
Venue
Lab Animal
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2013-07-22
Volume
42
Issue
8
Pages
286-291
ISSN
  • 0093-7355
  • 1548-4475
DOI
10.1038/laban.257
PMC
PMC3876742
Cited by
58
References
73
Language
en
Licence
www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.