ReviewHandbook of experimental pharmacology2009
Central mechanisms II: pharmacology of brainstem pathways.
Review in Handbook of experimental pharmacology, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 28 citations in OpenAlex.
- Peripheral antitussives affect temporal features of tracheobronchial coughing in cats.Journal of applied physiology (Bethesda, Md. : 1985) · 2025Article
- The influence of CORespiratory physiology & neurobiology · 2023Article
- Diels-Alder Adducts of Morphinan-6,8-Dienes and Their Transformations.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Role of the dorsomedial medulla in suppression of cough by codeine in cats.Respiratory physiology & neurobiology · 2017Article
- Review
- Variability of the pharyngeal phase of swallow in the cat.PloS one · 2014Article
- Influence of baclofen on laryngeal and spinal motor drive during cough in the anesthetized cat.The Laryngoscope · 2013Article
- Review
- Perspective on the human cough reflex.Cough (London, England) · 2011Article
- Central regulation of the cough reflex: therapeutic implications.Pulmonary pharmacology & therapeutics · 2009Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Following systemic administration, centrally acting antitussive drugs are generally assumed to act in the brainstem to inhibit cough. However, recent work in humans has raised the possibility of suprapontine sites of action for cough suppressants. For drugs that may act in the brainstem, the specific locations, types of neurones affected, and receptor specificities of the compounds represent important issues regarding their cough-suppressant actions. Two medullary areas that have received the most attention regarding the actions of antitussive drugs are the nucleus of the tractus solitarius (NTS) and the caudal ventrolateral respiratory column. Studies that have implicated these two medullary areas have employed both microinjection and in vitro recording methods to control the location of action of the antitussive drugs. Other brainstem regions contain neurones that participate in the production of cough and could represent potential sites of action of antitussive drugs. These regions include the raphe nuclei, pontine nuclei, and rostral ventrolateral medulla. Specific receptor subtypes have been associated with the suppression of cough at central sites, including 5-HT1A, opioid (mu, kappa, and delta), GABA-B, tachykinin neurokinin-1 (NK-1) and neurokinin-2, non-opioid (NOP-1), cannabinoid, dopaminergic, and sigma receptors. Aside from tachykinin NK-1 receptors in the NTS, relatively little is known regarding the receptor specificity of putative antitussive drugs in particular brainstem regions. Our understanding of the mechanisms of action of antitussive drugs would be significantly advanced by further work in this area.
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.