Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27072787›Full record

ArticleNeurogastroenterology and motility2016

Impact of electrical stimulation of the stomach on gastric distension-induced emesis in the musk shrew.

C C Horn, L Zirpel, M G Sciullo, D M Rosenberg

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Neurogastroenterology and motility, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Sensory signals for nausea.Trends in neurosciences · 2025
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Electroceuticals in the Gastrointestinal Tract.Trends in pharmacological sciences · 2020
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Brain Activation by HFrontiers in physiology · 2017
    Article
  9. 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

4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

C C HornBiobehavioral Oncology Program, University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
L ZirpelNeuromodulation Global Research, Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN, USA.
M G SciulloBiobehavioral Oncology Program, University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
D M RosenbergDepartment of Neuroscience, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
University of Pittsburgh · USMedtronic (United States) · USUPMC Hillman Cancer Center · US

Funding

VECTOR CORE FACILITYP30CA047904 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI JOHN C. BYRD · 1988 to 2026
$158.0M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA047904
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGastric electrical stimulation (GES) is implicated as a potential therapy for difficult-to-treat nausea and vomiting; however, there is a lack of insight into the mechanisms responsible for these effects. This study tested the relationship between acute GES and emesis in musk shrews, an established emetic model system.

methodsUrethane-anesthetized shrews were used to record emetic responses (monitoring intra-tracheal pressure and esophageal contractions), respiration rate, heart rate variability, blood pressure, and gastrointestinal electromyograms. We investigated the effects of acute GES pulse duration (0.3, 1, 5, and 10 ms), current amplitude (0.5, 1, and 2 mA), pulse frequency (8, 15, 30, and 60 Hz), and electrode placement (antrum, body, and fundus) on emesis induced by gastric stretch, using a balloon. KEY

resultsThere were four outcomes: (i) GES did not modify the effects of gastric stretch-induced emesis; (ii) GES produced emesis, depending on the stimulation parameters, but was less effective than gastric stretch; (iii) other physiological changes were closely associated with emesis and could be related to a sub-threshold activation of the emetic system, including suppression of breathing and rise in blood pressure; and (iv) a control experiment showed that 8-OH-DPAT, a reported 5-HT1A receptor agonist that acts centrally as an antiemetic, blocked gastric stretch-induced emesis. CONCLUSIONS AND INFERENCES: These results do not support an antiemetic effect of acute GES on gastric distension-induced emesis within the range of conditions tested, but further evaluation should focus on a broader range of emetic stimuli and GES stimulation parameters.

Indexed as

Electric Stimulation8-Hydroxy-2-(di-n-propylamino)tetralinAnimalsAntiemeticsBlood PressureElectrocardiographyElectromyographyGastric DilatationMaleSerotonin Receptor AgonistsShrewsStomachVomiting8-Hydroxy-2-(di-n-propylamino)tetralinAntiemeticsSerotonin Receptor Agonistsemesisgastric electrical stimulationmotilitynauseaSuncus murinus

Identifiers

PMID27072787
PMCPMC4956516
OpenAlexW2338069471

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.