ArticleNeuroscience letters2011
Oral methylphenidate establishes a conditioned place preference in rats.
Article in Neuroscience letters, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Methylphenidate attenuates signs of evoked neuropathic pain in animal model.Physiological research · 2023Article
- Methylphenidate as a treatment option for substance use disorder: a transdiagnostic perspective.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2023Article
- Ayahuasca blocks the reinstatement of methylphenidate-induced conditioned place preference in mice: behavioral and brain Fos expression evaluations.Psychopharmacology · 2020Article
- Single and Repeated Administration of Methylphenidate Modulates Synaptic Plasticity in Opposite Directions via Insertion of AMPA Receptors in Rat Hippocampal Neurons.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2018Article
- Interactive effects of methylphenidate and alcohol on discrimination, conditioned place preference and motor coordination in C57BL/6J mice.Psychopharmacology · 2013Article
- Methylphenidate and μ opioid receptor interactions: a pharmacological target for prevention of stimulant abuse.NeuropharmacologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Emerging data suggest that illicit methylphenidate abuse is a growing problem. Although abuse of the drug typically occurs by the intranasal route, oral (per os; p.o.) methylphenidate also has abuse potential. The present study compared the effects of p.o. and intraperitoneal (i.p.) methylphenidate in rats using the conditioned place preference (CPP) procedure. Young adult male Sprague-Dawley rats were trained to consume oyster crackers injected initially with saline. Next, rats were randomly assigned to receive p.o. or i.p. methylphenidate (3 or 10mg/kg) or saline immediately or 30min prior to 30min conditioning trials. Methylphenidate or saline were each paired 4 times with an end compartment; preference for the methylphenidate-paired compartment was then assessed on a drug-free session. When given immediately prior to conditioning, significant CPP was obtained with both 3 and 10mg/kg of i.p. methylphenidate, but only with 10mg/kg of p.o. methylphenidate. When given 30min prior to conditioning, there was no evidence of CPP for any dose of i.p. or p.o. methylphenidate. These findings are the first demonstration that p.o. methylphenidate has rewarding effects, although i.p. methylphenidate is obtained at a 3mg/kg dose which did not establish CPP with p.o. administration. The lack of CPP following 30min pretreatment also suggests that conditioning may require the CS to be associated with a US of ascending, rather than descending, brain levels of methylphenidate. These results are consistent with clinical evidence of the reduced abuse liability of p.o. methylphenidate relative to methylphenidate taken by other (e.g., intranasal) routes.
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.