Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 190

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 11 of the 11 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The IMPROVE Guidelines (Ischaemia Models: Procedural Refinements Of in Vivo Experiments)

Open access
Percie du Sert, Nathalie, Alfieri, Alessio, Allan, Stuart M, Carswell, Hilary VO, Deuchar, Graeme A, Farr, Tracy D, Flecknell, Paul, Gallagher, Lindsay, Gibson, Claire L, Haley, Michael J, Macleod, Malcolm R, McColl, Barry W, McCabe, Christopher, Morancho, Anna, Moon, Lawrence DF, O’Neill, Michael J, Pérez de Puig, Isabel, Planas, Anna, Ragan, C Ian, Rosell, Anna, Roy, Lisa A, Ryder, Kathryn O, Simats, Alba, Sena, Emily S, Sutherland, Brad A, Tricklebank, Mark D, Trueman, Rebecca C, Whitfield, Lucy, Wong, Raymond, Macrae, I Mhairi·2017·Journal of Cerebral Blood Flow & Metabolism

Abstract

Most in vivo models of ischaemic stroke target the middle cerebral artery and a spectrum of stroke severities, from mild to substantial, can be achieved. This review describes opportunities to improve the in vivo modelling of ischaemic stroke and animal welfare. It provides a number of recommendations to minimise the level of severity in the most common rodent models of middle cerebral artery occlusion, while sustaining or improving the scientific outcomes. The recommendations cover basic requirements pre-surgery, selecting the most appropriate anaesthetic and analgesic regimen, as well as intraoperative and post-operative care. The aim is to provide support for researchers and animal care staff to refine their procedures and practices, and implement small incremental changes to improve the welfare of the animals used and to answer the scientific question under investigation. All recommendations are recapitulated in a summary poster (see supplementary information).

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 · 10.1177/0271678x17709185

Cites

11 of 11 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 11 references

Cited by

See all 190

Metadata

Authors
Percie du Sert, N., Alfieri, A., Allan, S. M., Carswell, H. V., Deuchar, G. A., Farr, T. D., Flecknell, P., Gallagher, L., Gibson, C. L., Haley, M. J., Macleod, M. R., McColl, B. W., McCabe, C., Morancho, A., Moon, L. D., O’Neill, M. J., Pérez de Puig, I., Planas, A., Ragan, C. I., Rosell, A., Roy, L. A., Ryder, K. O., Simats, A., Sena, E. S., Sutherland, B. A., Tricklebank, M. D., Trueman, R. C., Whitfield, L., Wong, R., & Macrae, I. M.
Venue
Journal of Cerebral Blood Flow & Metabolism
Published
2017-08-11
Volume
37
Issue
11
Pages
3488-3517
ISSN
  • 0271-678X (ISSN-L)
  • 1559-7016
OpenAlex
W2742992776
Cited by
190
References
11
FWCI
23.38
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

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: The IMPROVE Guidelines (Ischaemia Models: Procedural Refinements Of in Vivo Experiments). https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/0271678x17709185
The paper
Percie du Sert, N., Alfieri, A., Allan, S. M., Carswell, H. V., Deuchar, G. A., Farr, T. D., Flecknell, P., Gallagher, L., Gibson, C. L., Haley, M. J., Macleod, M. R., McColl, B. W., McCabe, C., Morancho, A., Moon, L. D., O’Neill, M. J., Pérez de Puig, I., Planas, A., Ragan, C. I., . . . Macrae, I. M. (2017). The IMPROVE Guidelines (Ischaemia Models: Procedural Refinements Of in Vivo Experiments). Journal of Cerebral Blood Flow & Metabolism. https://doi.org/10.1177/0271678x17709185

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.