Trial reportBritish journal of clinical pharmacology2015
Evidence for a vasomotor cyclo-oxygenase dependent mechanism of sensitization at the cutaneous level.
Trial report in British journal of clinical pharmacology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Neurovascular microcirculatory vasodilation mediated by C-fibers and Transient receptor potential vanilloid-type-1 channels (TRPV 1) is impaired in type 1 diabetes.Scientific reports · 2017Trial
- The reproducibility of protocols used to mediate a current-induced vasodilation in the human cutaneous microcirculation.PloS one · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsCurrent-induced vasodilation (CIV) is an axon-reflex response observed during monopolar current application such as iontophoresis. Cyclo-oxygenase derivates (COD) participate in CIV and act as sensitizing agents at the anodal level. Mechanisms involved during cathodal current application (CCA) are partially unknown. In a randomized double-blind crossover trial, we tested in 16 healthy subjects (i) the influence of the inter-stimulation interval (I-I) by comparing CIV following all-at-once 10 s CCA against 2 × 5 s CCA with intervals ranging from15 s-16 min and (ii) the participation of COD in CIV using 1 g aspirin or placebo intake.
methodsMeasurements were repeated 2 h and 14 days after treatment. Laser Doppler flowmetry assessed cutaneous blood flow, reported in multiples of baseline.
resultsBefore treatment, peak vasodilation 10 min after the last current application (CVCstim2 ) increased compared with baseline whatever the I-I. Increase in CVCstim2 from baseline was greater for the 4 min (9.4 (5.3, 10.9) times; median (1(st) percentile, 3(rd) percentile)) and higher I-Is compared with all-at-once delivery (3.0 (2.1, 4.3) times, P < 0.05). The response was similar after placebo but aspirin abolished this vasodilation (increase by 1.2 (1.1, 1.3) times for all-at-once delivery and by 1.5 (1.3, 1.7) ± 0.3 times for 4 min interval, 2 h after aspirin intake) that recovered after 14 days.
conclusionsThis confirms the participation of COD in CIV with CCA and their sensitizing action. This model can represent an attractive way to study the axon-reflex and sensitizing function of COD in humans.
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.