ArticleThe Journal of physiology2002
Break excitation alone does not explain the delay and amplitude of anodal current-induced vasodilatation in human skin.
Article in The Journal of physiology, 2002. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT00152724 (Etude de la Reserve Vasomotrice Microcirculatoire cutanée), which is not on this map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Etude de la Reserve Vasomotrice Microcirculatoire cutanée
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Fundamentals of transcranial electric and magnetic stimulation dose: definition, selection, and reporting practices.Brain stimulation · 2012Review
- Oral single high-dose aspirin results in a long-lived inhibition of anodal current-induced vasodilatation.British journal of pharmacology · 2002Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In iontophoresis experiments, a 'non-specific' current-induced vasodilatation interferes with the effects of the diffused drugs. This current-induced vasodilatation is assumed to rely on an axon reflex due to excitation of cutaneous nociceptors and is weaker and delayed at the anode as compared to the cathode. We analysed whether these anodal specificities could result from a break excitation of nociceptors. Break excitation is the generation of action potentials at the end of a square anodal DC current application, which are generally weaker than those observed at the onset of a same application at the cathode. In eight healthy volunteers, we studied forearm cutaneous laser Doppler flow (LDF) responses to: (1) anodal and cathodal 100 microA current applications of 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5 min; (2) 100 microA anodal applications of 3 min with a progressive ending over 100 s (total charge 23 mC); these were compared to square-ended 100 microA anodal applications of the same total charge (23 mC) or duration (3 min); (3) a 4 min 100 microA anodal application with a 333 msec break at half time. Results (mean +/- S.D.) are expressed as percentage of heat-induced maximal vasodilatation (%MVD). Onset (T(vd)) and amplitude (LDF(peak)) of vasodilatation were determined. We observed that: T(vd) was linearly related to the duration of current application at the anode (slope = 1.01, r(2) = 0.99, P < 0.0001) but not at the cathode (slope = 0.03, r(2) = 0.02, n.s.). Progressive ending of anodal current did not decrease LDF(peak) (63.3 +/- 24.6 %MVD) as compared to square-ending of current application of the same duration (36.9 +/- 22.2 %MVD) or the same total charge (57.1 +/- 23.5 %MVD). A transient break of anodal current did not allow for the vasodilatation to develop until current was permanently stopped. We conclude that, during iontophoresis, anodal break excitation alone cannot account for the delay and amplitude of the vascular response.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.