Annemarie Brüel1, Jesper Skovhus Thomsen1, Mikkel Bo Brent2,3. 1. Department of Biomedicine, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark. 2. Department of Biomedicine, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark. mbb@biomed.au.dk. 3. Department of Biomedicine, Health, Aarhus University, Wilhelm Meyers Allé 3, 8000, Aarhus C, Denmark. mbb@biomed.au.dk.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Several different animal models are used to study disuse-induced bone loss. This systematic review aims to give a comprehensive overview of the animal models of disuse-induced bone loss and provide a detailed narrative synthesis of each unique animal model. METHODS: PubMed and Embase were systematically searched for animal models of disuse from inception to November 30, 2019. In addition, Google Scholar and personal file archives were searched for relevant publications not indexed in PubMed or Embase. Two reviewers independently reviewed titles and abstracts for full-text inclusion. Data were extracted using a predefined extraction scheme to ensure standardization. RESULTS: 1964 titles and abstracts were screened of which 653 full-text articles were included. The most common animal species used to model disuse were rats (59%) and mice (30%). Males (53%) where used in the majority of the studies and genetically modified animals accounted for 7%. Twelve different methods to induce disuse were identified. The most frequently used methods were hindlimb unloading (44%), neurectomy (15%), bandages and orthoses (15%), and botulinum toxin (9%). The median time of disuse was 21 days (quartiles: 14 days, 36 days) and the median number of animals per group subjected to disuse was 10 (quartiles: 7, 14). Random group allocation was reported in 43% of the studies. Fewer than 5% of the studies justified the number of animals per group by a sample size calculation to ensure adequate statistical power. CONCLUSION: Multiple animal models of disuse-induced bone loss exist, and several species of animals have successfully been studied. The complexity of disuse-induced bone loss warrants rigid research study designs. This systematic review emphasized the need for standardization of animal disuse research and reporting.
OBJECTIVE: Several different animal models are used to study disuse-induced bone loss. This systematic review aims to give a comprehensive overview of the animal models of disuse-induced bone loss and provide a detailed narrative synthesis of each unique animal model. METHODS: PubMed and Embase were systematically searched for animal models of disuse from inception to November 30, 2019. In addition, Google Scholar and personal file archives were searched for relevant publications not indexed in PubMed or Embase. Two reviewers independently reviewed titles and abstracts for full-text inclusion. Data were extracted using a predefined extraction scheme to ensure standardization. RESULTS: 1964 titles and abstracts were screened of which 653 full-text articles were included. The most common animal species used to model disuse were rats (59%) and mice (30%). Males (53%) where used in the majority of the studies and genetically modified animals accounted for 7%. Twelve different methods to induce disuse were identified. The most frequently used methods were hindlimb unloading (44%), neurectomy (15%), bandages and orthoses (15%), and botulinum toxin (9%). The median time of disuse was 21 days (quartiles: 14 days, 36 days) and the median number of animals per group subjected to disuse was 10 (quartiles: 7, 14). Random group allocation was reported in 43% of the studies. Fewer than 5% of the studies justified the number of animals per group by a sample size calculation to ensure adequate statistical power. CONCLUSION: Multiple animal models of disuse-induced bone loss exist, and several species of animals have successfully been studied. The complexity of disuse-induced bone loss warrants rigid research study designs. This systematic review emphasized the need for standardization of animal disuse research and reporting.
Entities:
Keywords:
Animal models; Bone loss; Disuse; Immobilization; Mechanical unloading
Authors: S Fiorentino; G Melillo; G Fedele; G Clavenna; C D'Agostino; E Mainetti; G F Caselli Journal: Pharmacol Res Date: 1996 Apr-May Impact factor: 7.658
Authors: Rob B M de Vries; Carlijn R Hooijmans; Alice Tillema; Marlies Leenaars; Merel Ritskes-Hoitinga Journal: Lab Anim Date: 2011-09-02 Impact factor: 2.471
Authors: Markus Steiner; Andrea Harrer; Roland Lang; Michael Schneider; Tima Ferreira; Thomas Hawranek; Martin Himly Journal: J Vis Exp Date: 2011-09-16 Impact factor: 1.355
Authors: N H Hart; S Nimphius; T Rantalainen; A Ireland; A Siafarikas; R U Newton Journal: J Musculoskelet Neuronal Interact Date: 2017-09-01 Impact factor: 2.041