Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26834997›Full record

ArticleF1000Research2015

The dorsal posterior insula is not an island in pain but subserves a fundamental role - Response to: "Evidence against pain specificity in the dorsal posterior insula" by Davis et al.

Andrew R Segerdahl, Melvin Mezue, Thomas W Okell, John T Farrar, Irene Tracey

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in F1000Research, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 17% 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Resolving the Brainstem Contributions to Attentional Analgesia.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2017
    Article
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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Andrew R SegerdahlOxford Centre for Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging of the Brain (FMRIB), Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX1 4BH, UK; Nuffield Division of Anesthetics, Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX1 4BH, UK.
Melvin MezueOxford Centre for Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging of the Brain (FMRIB), Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX1 4BH, UK; Nuffield Division of Anesthetics, Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX1 4BH, UK.
Thomas W OkellOxford Centre for Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging of the Brain (FMRIB), Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX1 4BH, UK.
John T FarrarCenter for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19104-6291, USA.
Irene TraceyOxford Centre for Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging of the Brain (FMRIB), Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX1 4BH, UK; Nuffield Division of Anesthetics, Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX1 4BH, UK.
University of Oxford · GBUniversity of Pennsylvania · US

Funding

Medical Research Council G0700399
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

An interesting and valuable discussion has arisen from our recent article (Segerdahl, Mezue et al., 2015) and we are pleased here to have the opportunity to expand on the various points we made. Equally important, we wish to correct several important misunderstandings that were made by Davis and colleagues that possibly contributed to their concerns about power when assessing our paper (e.g. actual subject numbers used in control experiment and the reality of the signal-to-noise and sampling of the multi-TI technique we employed). Here, we clarify the methods and analysis plus discuss how we interpret the data in the Brief Communication noting that the extrapolation and inferences made by Davis and colleagues are not consistent with our report or necessarily, in our opinion, what the data supports. We trust this reassures the F1000Research readership regarding the robustness of our results and what we actually concluded in the paper regarding their possible meaning. We are pleased, though, that Davis and colleagues have used our article to raise an important discussion around pain perception, and here offer some further insights towards that broader discussion.

Indexed as

Pain, insula, brain imaging, ASL

Identifiers

PMID26834997
PMCPMC4706052
OpenAlexW2206243626

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.