For Publishers
DiscoveryMetadataPeer reviewHostingPublishing
For Researchers
JoinPublishReviewCollect
Register
Blog
About
Search
Advanced search
My ScienceOpen
Search
For Publishers
For Researchers
Blog
About
7
views
33
references
 Top references
cited by
1
    
0 reviews
 Review
0
comments
 Comment
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      138
      similar
       All similar

      To submit your manuscript, please click here

      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Drill-Hole Bone Defects in Animal Models of Bone Healing: Protocol for a Systematic Review

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Bone fractures are common conditions of the musculoskeletal system. Several animal models of bone fractures have been established to help elucidate the complex process of bone healing. In the last decades, drill-hole bone defects have emerged as a method to study bone healing. Animal models of drill-hole defects are easy to standardize and do not require external fixation of the bone. However, current studies of drill-hole bone defects lack detailed descriptions of techniques and interstudy standardization.

          Objective

          This systematic review aims to present a detailed description of the different methods used to induce drill-hole bone defects in long bones of laboratory animals and to provide a comprehensive overview of their methodology and potential for investigation of bone healing.

          Methods

          A systematic search of PubMed and Embase will be performed of abstracts containing variations of the following four keywords: “long bone,” “drill-hole,” “regeneration,” and “animal model.” Abstract screening and full-text screening will be performed independently by 2 reviewers, and data will be extracted to a predesigned extraction protocol. The primary outcome of the included studies is the technique used to create the drill-hole bone defect, and secondary outcomes are any measurements or analyses of bone defect and regeneration. A narrative synthesis will be used to present the primary outcome, while information on secondary outcomes will be displayed graphically. The study protocol follows the PRISMA-P (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Protocols) guidelines.

          Results

          Abstract and full-text screening is ongoing and is expected to be completed by October 2022. Data extraction will commence immediately after, and the manuscript is expected to be completed by December 2023. The systematic review will follow the PRISMA statement.

          Conclusions

          The strength of this systematic review is that it provides a comprehensive methodological overview of the different drill-hole methods and their advantages and disadvantages. This will assist researchers in choosing which model to use when studying different aspects of bone healing.

          Trial Registration

          International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42020213076; https://tinyurl.com/bp56wdwe

          International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)

          PRR1-10.2196/34887

          Related collections

          Most cited references33

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews

          Matthew J L Page, Joanne E McKenzie, Patrick Bossuyt … (2025)
          The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. In this article, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews.
          Article 0 comments Cited 15791 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement

            David Moher, Larissa Shamseer, Mike Clarke … (2017)
            Systematic reviews should build on a protocol that describes the rationale, hypothesis, and planned methods of the review; few reviews report whether a protocol exists. Detailed, well-described protocols can facilitate the understanding and appraisal of the review methods, as well as the detection of modifications to methods and selective reporting in completed reviews. We describe the development of a reporting guideline, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses for Protocols 2015 (PRISMA-P 2015). PRISMA-P consists of a 17-item checklist intended to facilitate the preparation and reporting of a robust protocol for the systematic review. Funders and those commissioning reviews might consider mandating the use of the checklist to facilitate the submission of relevant protocol information in funding applications. Similarly, peer reviewers and editors can use the guidance to gauge the completeness and transparency of a systematic review protocol submitted for publication in a journal or other medium.
            Article 0 comments Cited 6418 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Normal bone anatomy and physiology.

              Bart Clarke (2008)
              This review describes normal bone anatomy and physiology as an introduction to the subsequent articles in this section that discuss clinical applications of iliac crest bone biopsy. The normal anatomy and functions of the skeleton are reviewed first, followed by a general description of the processes of bone modeling and remodeling. The bone remodeling process regulates the gain and loss of bone mineral density in the adult skeleton and directly influences bone strength. Thorough understanding of the bone remodeling process is critical to appreciation of the value of and interpretation of the results of iliac crest bone histomorphometry. Osteoclast recruitment, activation, and bone resorption is discussed in some detail, followed by a review of osteoblast recruitment and the process of new bone formation. Next, the collagenous and noncollagenous protein components and function of bone extracellular matrix are summarized, followed by a description of the process of mineralization of newly formed bone matrix. The actions of biomechanical forces on bone are sensed by the osteocyte syncytium within bone via the canalicular network and intercellular gap junctions. Finally, concepts regarding bone remodeling, osteoclast and osteoblast function, extracellular matrix, matrix mineralization, and osteocyte function are synthesized in a summary of the currently understood functional determinants of bone strength. This information lays the groundwork for understanding the utility and clinical applications of iliac crest bone biopsy.
              Article 0 comments Cited 521 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
                Bookmark
                All references

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Frederik Duch Bromer:
                ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6839-139X
                Department of BiomedicineAarhus UniversityWilhelm Meyers Allé 3Aarhus C, 8000Denmark45 8715 0000fd@biomed.au.dk
                Journal
                Journal ID (nlm-ta): JMIR Res Protoc
                Journal ID (iso-abbrev): JMIR Res Protoc
                Journal ID (publisher-id): ResProt
                Title: JMIR Research Protocols
                Publisher: JMIR Publications (Toronto, Canada )
                ISSN (Electronic): 1929-0748
                Publication date Collection: July 2022
                Publication date (Electronic): 18 July 2022
                Volume: 11
                Issue: 7
                Electronic Location Identifier: e34887
                Affiliations
                [1 ] Department of Biomedicine Aarhus University Aarhus C Denmark
                Author notes
                Corresponding Author: Frederik Duch Bromer fd@ 123456biomed.au.dk
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6839-139X
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3475-4295
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9386-6679
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4833-0888
                Article
                Publisher ID: v11i7e34887
                DOI: 10.2196/34887
                PMC ID: 9345022
                PubMed ID: 35849443
                SO-VID: b2db0ecb-15c5-41ca-98cc-40d389bbf28b
                Copyright © ©Frederik Duch Bromer, Mikkel Bo Brent, Jesper Skovhus Thomsen, Annemarie Brüel. Originally published in JMIR Research Protocols (https://www.researchprotocols.org), 18.07.2022.
                License:

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in JMIR Research Protocols, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on https://www.researchprotocols.org, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.

                History
                Date received : 11 November 2021
                Date revision requested : 18 February 2022
                Date revision received : 29 April 2022
                Date accepted : 24 May 2022
                Categories
                Subject: Protocol
                Subject: Protocol

                Keywords: systematic review,animal models,preclinical,bone defect,drill-hole,fracture model,bone,bone healing,protocol,bone fracture,animal model,healing,laboratory,laboratory animal
                Data availability:
                Keywords: systematic review, animal models, preclinical, bone defect, drill-hole, fracture model, bone, bone healing, protocol, bone fracture, animal model, healing, laboratory, laboratory animal

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_

                Similar content138

                See all similar

                Cited by1

                See all cited by

                Most referenced authors1,049

                See all reference authors