ReviewBritish journal of pharmacology2013
Clinical pharmacology of analgesics assessed with human experimental pain models: bridging basic and clinical research.
Review in British journal of pharmacology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 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
32 citing papers in PubMed, 75 citations in OpenAlex.
- Epidural methadone and morphine pharmacokinetics and clinical effects in healthy volunteers: A randomized, crossover-design trial.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2024Trial
- Central encoding of the strength of intranasal chemosensory trigeminal stimuli in a human experimental pain setting.Human brain mapping · 2020Trial
- The use of a battery of pain models to detect analgesic properties of compounds: a two-part four-way crossover study.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2017Trial
- Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of intrathecally administered Xen2174, a synthetic conopeptide with norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor and analgesic properties.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2017Trial
- Non-invasive combined surrogates of remifentanil blood concentrations with relevance to analgesia.Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2013Trial
- Quantitative sensory testing and classical pain model dataset in 127 healthy volunteers.Data in brief · 2026Article
- Article
- Developing mathematical models to compare and analyse the pharmacokinetics of morphine and fentanyl.Indian journal of anaesthesia · 2024Article
- Trends in Prescription Chronic Pain Medication Use before and during the First Wave of the COVID-19 Pandemic in Québec, Canada: An Interrupted Time Series Analysis.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Article
- Polypharmacy and Excessive Polypharmacy Among Persons Living with Chronic Pain: A Cross-Sectional Study on the Prevalence and Associated Factors.Journal of pain research · 2023Article
- Machine-Learning Analysis of Serum Proteomics in Neuropathic Pain after Nerve Injury in Breast Cancer Surgery Points at Chemokine Signaling via SIRT2 Regulation.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022Article
- NaEuropean journal of pharmacology · 2021Article
- Pain, Smell, and Taste in Adults: A Narrative Review of Multisensory Perception and Interaction.Pain and therapy · 2021Review
- The Distinct Functions of Dopaminergic Receptors on Pain Modulation: A Narrative Review.Neural plasticity · 2021Review
- Machine-Learned Association of Next-Generation Sequencing-Derived Variants in Thermosensitive Ion Channels Genes with Human Thermal Pain Sensitivity Phenotypes.International journal of molecular sciences · 2020Article
- Pharmacological plasticity-How do you hit a moving target?Pharmacology research & perspectives · 2019Review
- [Generating knowledge from complex data sets in human experimental pain research].Schmerz (Berlin, Germany) · 2019Review
- Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol reduces the performance in sensory delayed discrimination tasks. A pharmacological-fMRI study in healthy volunteers.IBRO reports · 2019Article
- Reproducibility of a battery of human evoked pain models to detect pharmacological effects of analgesic drugs.European journal of pain (London, England) · 2019Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The medical impact of pain is such that much effort is being applied to develop novel analgesic drugs directed towards new targets and to investigate the analgesic efficacy of known drugs. Ongoing research requires cost-saving tools to translate basic science knowledge into clinically effective analgesic compounds. In this review we have re-examined the prediction of clinical analgesia by human experimental pain models as a basis for model selection in phase I studies. The overall prediction of analgesic efficacy or failure of a drug correlated well between experimental and clinical settings. However, correct model selection requires more detailed information about which model predicts a particular clinical pain condition. We hypothesized that if an analgesic drug was effective in an experimental pain model and also a specific clinical pain condition, then that model might be predictive for that particular condition and should be selected for development as an analgesic for that condition. The validity of the prediction increases with an increase in the numbers of analgesic drug classes for which this agreement was shown. From available evidence, only five clinical pain conditions were correctly predicted by seven different pain models for at least three different drugs. Most of these models combine a sensitization method. The analysis also identified several models with low impact with respect to their clinical translation. Thus, the presently identified agreements and non-agreements between analgesic effects on experimental and on clinical pain may serve as a solid basis to identify complex sets of human pain models that bridge basic science with clinical pain research.
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.