Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29453697›Full record

ReviewClinical autonomic research : official journal of the Clinical Autonomic Research Society2018

The sacral autonomic outflow is parasympathetic: Langley got it right.

John P Horn

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Clinical autonomic research : official journal of the Clinical Autonomic Research Society, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
–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

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Neuronal lineages derived from the nerve-associated Schwann cell precursors.Cellular and molecular life sciences : CMLS · 2021
    Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
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.

John P HornDepartment of Neurobiology and Center for Neuroscience, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA, 15238, USA. jph@pitt.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5516-0210

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A recent developmental study of gene expression by Espinosa-Medina, Brunet and colleagues sparked controversy by asserting a revised nomenclature for divisions of the autonomic motor system. Should we re-classify the sacral autonomic outflow as sympathetic, as now suggested, or does it rightly belong to the parasympathetic system, as defined by Langley nearly 100 years ago? Arguments for rejecting Espinosa-Medina, Brunet et al.'s scheme subsequently appeared in e-letters and brief reviews. A more recent commentary in this journal by Brunet and colleagues responded to these criticisms by labeling Langley's scheme as a historical myth perpetuated by ignorance. In reaction to this heated exchange, I now examine both sides to the controversy, together with purported errors by the pioneers in the field. I then explain, once more, why the sacral outflow should remain known as parasympathetic, and outline suggestions for future experimentation to advance the understanding of cellular identity in the autonomic motor system.

Indexed as

AnimalsAutonomic Nervous SystemHumansNeuronsParasympathetic Nervous SystemSacrumAutonomic nervous systemParasympatheticSacralSympatheticTaxonomy

Identifiers

PMID29453697
PMCPMC5859694

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.