Author/Authors :
Menegat, Taís Amadio Department of Surgery - Universidade Federal de São Paulo (UNIFESP), Brazil , Oliveira, Andrea Fernandes de Universidade Federal de São Paulo (UNIFESP), Brazil , Majewski, Michelle Gioia Coiado School of Medicine - PIBIC/CNPq - UNIFESP, Sao Paulo-SP, Brazil , Blanes, Leila UNIFESP, Sao Paulo-SP, Brazil , Juliano, Yara Biostatistics Department - Universidade Santo Amaro (UNISA), Sao Paulo-SP, Brazil , Novo, Neil Ferreira Biostatistics Department - Universidade Santo Amaro (UNISA), Sao Paulo-SP, Brazil , Ferreira, Lydia Masako UNIFESP, Brazil
Abstract :
Purpose:
To conduct a scope review of the experimental model described by Walker and Mason, by identifying and analyzing the details of the method.
Methods:
The authors searched Pubmed-Medline, Cochrane-Bireme and PEDro databases for articles published between January 2016 and December 2018, using the following search queries: burns, burn injuries, models animal, and animal experimentation. All articles whose authors used Walker and Mason's model - with or without changes to the method in Wistar rats - were included in this study.
Results:
The search identified 45 mentions of Walker and Mason's model; however, after reading each summary, 20 were excluded (of which 5 due to duplicity). The inconsistencies observed after the scope review were: water temperature, length of time of exposure of the experimental model's skin to water, extent of the burnt area, and the description of the thickness/depth of the injury.
Conclusions:
Reproducibility of a scientific method is the basis to prove the veracity of the observed results. Thus, it is necessary to have a greater number of publications that adopt a reproducible scientific method, for this review found inconsistencies in the description of Walker and Mason's model.
Keywords :
Models , Animal , Animal Experimentation , Mice