4.5 Review

Targeting Translational Successes through CANSORT-SCI: Using Pet Dogs To Identify Effective Treatments for Spinal Cord Injury

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEUROTRAUMA
卷 34, 期 12, 页码 2007-2018

出版社

MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC
DOI: 10.1089/neu.2016.4745

关键词

animal model; clinical trial; dog; spinal cord injury

资金

  1. Mission Connect [015-105]
  2. [R01 NS074882-06]
  3. [R01 NS39278]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Translation of therapeutic interventions for spinal cord injury (SCI) from laboratory to clinic has been historically challenging, highlighting the need for robust models of injury that more closely mirror the human condition. The high prevalence of acute, naturally occurring SCI in pet dogs provides a unique opportunity to evaluate expeditiously promising interventions in a population of animals that receive diagnoses and treatment clinically in a manner similar to persons with SCI, while adhering to National Institutes of Health guidelines for scientific rigor and transparent reporting. In addition, pet dogs with chronic paralysis are often maintained long-term by their owners, offering a similarly unique population for study of chronic SCI. Despite this, only a small number of studies have used the clinical dog model of SCI. The Canine Spinal Cord Injury Consortium (CANSORT-SCI) was recently established by a group of veterinarians and basic science researchers to promote the value of the canine clinical model of SCI. The CANSORT-SCI group held an inaugural meeting November 20 and 21, 2015 to evaluate opportunities and challenges to the use of pet dogs in SCI research. Key challenges identified included lack of familiarity with the model among nonveterinary scientists and questions about how and where in the translational process the canine clinical model would be most valuable. In light of these, we review the natural history, outcome, and available assessment tools associated with canine clinical SCI with emphasis on their relevance to human SCI and the translational process.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据