Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27861362›Full record

Trial reportMedicine2016

Effects of target-controlled infusion of high-dose naloxone on pain and hyperalgesia in a human thermal injury model: a study protocol: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover trial with an enriched design.

Anders D Springborg, Elisabeth K Jensen, Bradley K Taylor, Mads U Werner

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 22% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Developmental mechanisms of CPSP: Clinical observations and translational laboratory evaluations.Canadian journal of pain = Revue canadienne de la douleur · 2022
    Review
  4. Article
  5. 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 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Anders D SpringborgNeuroscience Center, Copenhagen University Hospitals, Copenhagen, Denmark Department of Physiology, College of Medicine, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY.
Elisabeth K Jensen
Bradley K Taylor
Mads U Werner
Copenhagen University Hospital · DKUniversity of Kentucky · US

Funding

Long-term activation of spinal opioid analgesia after inflammationR01DA037621 · NIDA · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI TAYLOR, BRADLEY K. · 2015 to 2019
$3.4M
NIDA NIH HHS R01 DA037621
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Mu-opioid-receptor antagonists have been extensively studied in experimental research as pharmacological tools uncovering mechanisms of pain modulation by the endogenous opioid system. In rodents, administration of high doses of mu-opioid-receptor antagonists after the resolution of an inflammatory injury has demonstrated reinstatement of nociceptive hypersensitivity indicating unmasking of latent sensitization. In a recent human study, pain hypersensitivity assessed as secondary hyperalgesia area (SHA), was reinstated 7 days after a mild thermal injury, in 4 out of 12 subjects after a naloxone infusion.The aims of the present study are first, to replicate our previous findings in a larger-sized study; second, to examine if high sensitizers (subjects presenting with large SHA after a thermal injury) develop a higher degree of hypersensitivity after naloxone challenge than low sensitizers (subjects presenting with restricted SHA after a thermal injury); and third to examine a dose-response relationship between 3 stable naloxone concentrations controlled by target-controlled infusion, and the unmasking of latent sensitization.Healthy participants (n = 80) underwent a screening day (day 0) with induction of a thermal skin injury (47°C, 420 seconds, 12.5 cm). Assessment of SHA was performed 1 and 2 hours after the injury. Using an enriched design, only participants belonging to the upper quartile of SHA (Q4, high sensitizers; n = 20) and the lower quartile of SHA (Q1, low sensitizers; n = 20) continued the study, comprising 4 consecutive days-days 1 to 4. Thermal skin injuries were repeated on day 1 and day 3, whereas day 2 and day 4 (7 days after day 1 and day 3, respectively) were target-controlled infusion days in which the subjects were randomly allocated to receive either naloxone (3.25 mg/kg, 4 mg/mL) or placebo (normal saline) intravenous. The primary outcome was SHA assessed by weighted-pin instrument (128 mN) 0, 1, 2, and 165 to 169 hours after the thermal injury (day 1-4). The secondary outcomes were pin-prick pain thresholds assessed by weighted-pin instrument (8-512 mN) at primary and secondary hyperalgesia areas (days 1-4).The naloxone-induced unmasking of latent sensitization is an interesting model for exploring the transition from acute to chronic pain. The results from the present study may provide valuable information regarding future research in persistent postsurgical pain states.

Indexed as

AdultBurnsCross-Over StudiesDenmarkDouble-Blind MethodHumansHyperalgesiaInfusions, IntravenousMaleNaloxoneNarcotic AntagonistsPainPain ManagementPain MeasurementPain ThresholdNaloxoneNarcotic Antagonists

Identifiers

PMID27861362
PMCPMC5120919
OpenAlexW2556818902

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.