Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29302222›Full record

ReviewDialogues in clinical neuroscience2017

Animal models of addiction.

Rainer Spanagel

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Dialogues in clinical neuroscience, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 112 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
112citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

112 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Quo Vadis translational neuroscience?Translational neuroscience · 2026
    Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. A new module in the drug development process: preclinical multi-center randomized controlled trial of R-ketamine on alcohol relapse.Neuropsychopharmacology : official publication of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology · 2025
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

52 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

1 author.

Rainer SpanagelInstitute of Psychopharmacology, Central Institute of Mental Health, Medical Faculty Mannheim/Heidelberg University, Mannheim, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In recent years, animal models in psychiatric research have been criticized for their limited translational value to the clinical situation. Failures in clinical trials have thus often been attributed to the lack of predictive power of preclinical animal models. Here, I argue that animal models of voluntary drug intake-under nonoperant and operant conditions-and addiction models based on the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders are crucial and informative tools for the identification of pathological mechanisms, target identification, and drug development. These models provide excellent face validity, and it is assumed that the neurochemical and neuroanatomical substrates involved in drug-intake behavior are similar in laboratory rodents and humans. Consequently, animal models of drug consumption and addiction provide predictive validity. This predictive power is best illustrated in alcohol research, in which three approved medications-acamprosate, naltrexone, and nalmefene-were developed by means of animal models and then successfully translated into the clinical situation.

Indexed as

Behavior, AddictiveDisease Models, AnimalSubstance-Related DisordersAnimalsHumansbiomarkercocaine and alcohol addictiondrug self-administrationDSM-based animal modelface validitypredictive validitytranslational neuroimaging

Identifiers

PMID29302222
PMCPMC5741108

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.