Chapter title |
Bridging the Gap of Standardized Animals Models for Blast Neurotrauma: Methodology for Appropriate Experimental Testing.
|
---|---|
Chapter number | 7 |
Book title |
Injury Models of the Central Nervous System
|
Published in |
Methods in molecular biology, January 2016
|
DOI | 10.1007/978-1-4939-3816-2_7 |
Pubmed ID | |
Book ISBNs |
978-1-4939-3814-8, 978-1-4939-3816-2
|
Authors |
Pamela J. VandeVord Ph.D., Alessandra Dal Cengio Leonardi, David Ritzel, Pamela J. VandeVord |
Editors |
Firas H. Kobeissy, C. Edward Dixon, Ronald L. Hayes, Stefania Mondello |
Abstract |
Recent military combat has heightened awareness to the complexity of blast-related traumatic brain injuries (bTBI). Experiments using animal, cadaver, or biofidelic physical models remain the primary measures to investigate injury biomechanics as well as validate computational simulations, medical diagnostics and therapies, or protection technologies. However, blast injury research has seen a range of irregular and inconsistent experimental methods for simulating blast insults generating results which may be misleading, cannot be cross-correlated between laboratories, or referenced to any standard for exposure. Both the US Army Medical Research and Materiel Command and the National Institutes of Health have noted that there is a lack of standardized preclinical models of TBI. It is recommended that the blast injury research community converge on a consistent set of experimental procedures and reporting of blast test conditions. This chapter describes the blast conditions which can be recreated within a laboratory setting and methodology for testing in vivo models within the appropriate environment. |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 17 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 35% |
Student > Bachelor | 4 | 24% |
Researcher | 2 | 12% |
Student > Master | 1 | 6% |
Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 6% |
Other | 0 | 0% |
Unknown | 3 | 18% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 18% |
Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 12% |
Neuroscience | 2 | 12% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 6% |
Psychology | 1 | 6% |
Other | 4 | 24% |
Unknown | 4 | 24% |