Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 289

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 45 of the 45 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A Critical Reevaluation of the Intraluminal Thread Model of Focal Cerebral Ischemia: Evidence of Inadvertent Premature Reperfusion and Subarachnoid Hemorrhage in Rats by Laser-Doppler Flowmetry

Schmid-Elsaesser, Robert, Zausinger, Stefan, Hungerhuber, Edwin, Baethmann, Alexander, Reulen, Hanns-Juergen·1998·Stroke

Abstract

Background and Purpose —The intraluminal thread model for middle cerebral artery occlusion (MCAO) has gained increasing acceptance. Numerous modifications have been reported in the literature, indicating that the technique has not been standardized. The present study was performed to evaluate and optimize the reliability of this model. Methods —One hundred Sprague-Dawley rats were subjected to MCAO by 2 different intraluminal filaments. Cortical blood flow was continuously monitored over both hemispheres by laser-Doppler flowmetry (LDF). In part I (3-0 filament), we evaluated the incidence of adequate MCAO, subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH), intraluminal thrombus formation, and the effects of heparinization. In part II (silicone-coated 4-0 filament), we also determined the influence of insufficient MCAO on morphological and functional outcome and the incidence of postischemic hyperthermia. Results —In part I, SAH occurred in 30% and premature reperfusion in 24%. All animals with a decrease in contralateral flow had suffered SAH. Thrombus formation was not observed in any group. In part II, SAH occurred in 8% and premature reperfusion in 26%. There was no difference in outcome between rats with primary MCAO and rats with filament correction. Animals with uncorrected premature reperfusion had significantly smaller infarct volumes and fewer neurological deficits. Conclusions —SAH and insufficient MCAO may be more common in the intraluminal thread model than previously reported. Inadvertent premature reperfusion contributes to the interanimal variability associated with this model. The incidence of valid experiments increases with the use of a silicone-coated 4-0 filament. Continuous bilateral LDF is indispensable to monitor adequate MCAO and is highly sensitive to recognize SAH.

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 · 10.1161/01.str.29.10.2162

Cites

45 of 45 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

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

Show all 45 references

Cited by

See all 289

Metadata

Authors
Schmid-Elsaesser, R., Zausinger, S., Hungerhuber, E., Baethmann, A., & Reulen, H.-J.
Venue
Stroke
Published
1998-10
Volume
29
Issue
10
Pages
2162-2170
ISSN
  • 0039-2499 (ISSN-L)
  • 1524-4628
OpenAlex
W1889743606
Cited by
289
References
45
FWCI
7.59
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A Critical Reevaluation of the Intraluminal Thread Model of Focal Cerebral Ischemia: Evidence of Inadvertent Premature Reperfusion and Subarachnoid Hemorrhage in Rats by Laser-Doppler Flowmetry. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1161/01.str.29.10.2162
The paper
Schmid-Elsaesser, R., Zausinger, S., Hungerhuber, E., Baethmann, A., & Reulen, H.-J. (1998). A Critical Reevaluation of the Intraluminal Thread Model of Focal Cerebral Ischemia: Evidence of Inadvertent Premature Reperfusion and Subarachnoid Hemorrhage in Rats by Laser-Doppler Flowmetry. Stroke. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.str.29.10.2162

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.