| Title |
Standards and pitfalls of focal ischemia models in spontaneously hypertensive rats: With a systematic review of recent articles
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Translational Medicine, July 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1479-5876-10-139 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Hiroshi Yao, Toru Nabika |
| Abstract |
We reviewed the early development of various focal ischemia models in spontaneously hypertensive rats (SHR), and summarized recent reports on this topic. Among 6 focal ischemia models established in divergent substrains of SHR, distal middle cerebral artery occlusion is the most frequently used and relevant method of focal ischemia in the light of penumbra concept. We performed an online PubMed search (2001-2010), and identified 118 original articles with focal ischemia in SHR. Physiological parameters such as age, body weight, and even blood pressure were often neglected in the literature: the information regarding the physiological parameters of SHR is critical, and should be provided within the methodology section of all articles related to stroke models in SHR. Although the quality of recent studies on neuroprotective strategy is improving, the mechanisms underlying the protection should be more clearly recognized so as to facilitate the translation from animal studies to human stroke. To overcome the genetic heterogeneity in substrains of SHR, new approaches, such as a huge repository of genetic markers in rat strains and the congenic strategy, are currently in progress. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 40 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 6 | 15% |
| Researcher | 5 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 13% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 8% |
| Other | 8 | 20% |
| Unknown | 10 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 13 | 33% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 10% |
| Neuroscience | 4 | 10% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 3% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 4 | 10% |
| Unknown | 13 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 August 2012.
All research outputs
#18,312,024
of 22,673,450 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Translational Medicine
#2,925
of 3,955 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#126,492
of 164,302 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Translational Medicine
#36
of 56 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,673,450 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,955 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.5. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 164,302 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 56 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.