ArticleAmerican journal of physiology. Gastrointestinal and liver physiology2013
Translational aspects of rectal evoked potentials: a comparative study in rats and humans.
Article in American journal of physiology. Gastrointestinal and liver physiology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Composite Autonomic Symptom Score 31 Questionnaire: A Sensitive Test to Detect Risk for Autonomic Neuropathy.Journal of diabetes research · 2023Article
- A cutaneous mechanoneural interface for neuroprosthetic feedback.Nature biomedical engineering · 2022Article
- Cortical processing to anorectal stimuli after rectal resection with and without radiotherapy.Techniques in coloproctology · 2020Article
- Evaluation of Anorectal Afferent Pathway: Does It Help Overcome Unmet Diagnostic Needs in the Management of Fecal Incontinence?Journal of neurogastroenterology and motility · 2019Article
- Systematic mechanism-orientated approach to chronic pancreatitis pain.World journal of gastroenterology · 2015Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 8 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Inconsistencies between species has stunted the progress of developing new analgesics. To increase the success of translating results between species, improved comparable models are required. Twelve rats received rectal balloon distensions on 2 different days separated by 24.3 (SD 24.6) days. Rectal balloon distensions were also performed in 18 humans (mean age: 34 yr; range: 21-56 yr; 12 men) on two separate occasions, separated by 9.3 (SD 5.5) days. In rats, cerebral evoked potentials (CEPs) were recorded by use of implanted skull-electrodes to distension pressure of 80 mmHg. In humans surface electrodes and individualized pressure, corresponding to pain detection threshold, were used. Comparison of morphology was assessed by wavelet analysis. Within- and between-day reproducibility was assessed in terms of latencies, amplitudes, and frequency content. In rats CEPs showed triphasic morphology. No differences in latencies, amplitudes, and power distribution were seen within or between days (all P ≥ 0.5). Peak-to-peak amplitude between the first positive and negative potential were the most reproducible characteristic within and between days (evaluated by intraclass correlation coefficients, ICC) (ICC = 0.99 and ICC = 9.98, respectively). In humans CEPs showed a triphasic morphology. No differences in latencies, amplitudes, or power distribution were seen within or between days (all P ≥ 0.2). Latency to the second negative potential (ICC = 0.98) and the second positive potential (ICC = 0.95) was the most reproducible characteristic within and between days. A unique and reliable translational platform was established assessing visceral sensitivity in rats and humans, which may improve the translational process of developing new drugs targeting visceral pain.
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.