Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24473267›Full record

ReviewNature neuroscience2014

Pain vulnerability: a neurobiological perspective.

Franziska Denk, Stephen B McMahon, Irene Tracey

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nature neuroscience, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 171 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
171citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
16.9field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

171 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 359 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

111 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Franziska DenkKing's College London, Wolfson Centre for Age-Related Diseases, London, UK.
Stephen B McMahonKing's College London, Wolfson Centre for Age-Related Diseases, London, UK.
Irene TraceyOxford Centre for Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging of the Brain and Nuffield Division Anaesthetics, Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
King's College London · GBUniversity of Oxford · GB

Funding

Wellcome Trust 097903Wellcome Trust 102645
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There are many known risk factors for chronic pain conditions, yet the biological underpinnings that link these factors to abnormal processing of painful signals are only just beginning to be explored. This Review will discuss the potential mechanisms that have been proposed to underlie vulnerability and resilience toward developing chronic pain. Particular focus will be given to genetic and epigenetic processes, priming effects on a cellular level, and alterations in brain networks concerned with reward, motivation/learning and descending modulatory control. Although research in this area is still in its infancy, a better understanding of how pain vulnerability emerges has the potential to help identify individuals at risk and may open up new therapeutic avenues.

Indexed as

NeurobiologyPainAnimalsEpigenomicsHumansNeural PathwaysRisk Factors

Identifiers

PMID24473267
OpenAlexW2009740794

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.