Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesNarrative ReviewEurope PMCOpen access

Evaluation of animal models of Crohn's disease with anal fistula (Review)

Lu S., Zhu K., Guo Y., Wang E., Huang J.

Narrative Review on Autoimmune Research, published in Exp Ther Med (2021) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.

Open my reading list
Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesEvidence level of this study

Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.

  • Level A · Stronger Clinical Evidence
  • Level B · Emerging clinical evidence with positive signals
  • Level C · Early human research exploring benefits
  • Level D · Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studies
  • Emerging · Emerging topic under active research
Read the A–D evidence level guide

This page is generated from the PubMed record. The Thai description is an automated summary of bibliographic fields and the abstract, not a full translation, and is not medical advice.

Study type
Narrative Review
Journal
Exp Ther Med (2021)
Reported sample size
—
Source database
Europe PMC
PMID
34335916
PMCID
PMC8290422
DOI
10.3892/etm.2021.10406
Citations
5

Abstract (original English)

Anal fistula is a common and serious complication of Crohn's disease (CD). A sufficiently suitable animal model that may be used to simulate this disease is yet to be established. The aim of the present review was to summarize the different characteristics and experimental methods of commonly used animal models of CD with anal fistula. Electronic databases were searched for studies reporting on the use of this type of animal model. A total of 234 related articles were retrieved, of which six articles met the inclusion criteria; these were used as references for the present review article. The characteristics of the animal models, the advantages and disadvantages of the modeling methods and the similarities with patients with CD and anal fistula were summarized and analyzed. The evidence suggests that a sufficiently suitable animal preclinical model requires to be established.

What this study does not prove

  • • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.
  • • This is a narrative review: it collects no new patient data and does not systematically appraise evidence quality.

Evidence level

Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.

How we grade evidence

Browse all related research

Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.

Related research