Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesNarrative ReviewEurope PMC

The rat as an animal model in chronic wound research: An update

Ghanbari M., Salkovskiy Y., Carlson MA.

Narrative Review on Diabetic Foot, Peripheral Artery Disease, Chronic Wound, published in Life Sci (2024) — 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
Life Sci (2024)
Reported sample size
—
Source database
Europe PMC
PMID
38848945
PMCID
PMC11581782
DOI
10.1016/j.lfs.2024.122783
Citations
18

Abstract (original English)

The increasing global prevalence of chronic wounds underscores the growing importance of developing effective animal models for their study. This review offers a critical evaluation of the strengths and limitations of rat models frequently employed in chronic wound research and proposes potential improvements. It explores these models in the context of key comorbidities, including diabetes, venous and arterial insufficiency, pressure-induced blood flow obstruction, and infections. Additionally, the review examines important wound factors including age, sex, smoking, and the impact of anesthetic and analgesic drugs, acknowledging their substantial effects on research outcomes. A thorough understanding of these variables is crucial for refining animal models and can provide valuable insights for future research endeavors.

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
AnimalsHumansRatsWounds and InjuriesDisease Models, AnimalChronic DiseaseWound Healing

Browse all related research

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

Related research