ArticleJournal of pain research2018
Sustained analgesic effect of clonidine co-polymer depot in a porcine incisional pain model.
Article in Journal of pain research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- A novel excisional wound pain model for evaluation of analgesics in rats.The Korean journal of pain · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPrevious research suggests that the α PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to examine the efficacy of a sustained-release clonidine depot, placed in the wound bed, in a pig incisional pain model.
methodsThe depot was a 15 mm ×5 mm ×0.3 mm poly(lactide-co-caprolactone) polymer film containing 3% (w/w) clonidine HCl (MDT3). Fifty-two young adult mix Landrace pigs (9-11 kg) were divided into seven groups. All subjects received a 6 cm, full-thickness, linear incision into the left lateral flank. Group 1 served as a Sham control group (Sham, n=8). Group 2 received three placebo strips (PBO, n=8), placed end-to-end in the subcutaneous wound bed before wound closure. Group 3 received one MDT3 and two PBO (n=8), Group 4 received two MDT3 and one PBO (n=8), and Group 5 received three MDT3 (n=8). Positive control groups received peri-incisional injections of bupivacaine solution (Group 6, 30 mg/day bupivacaine, n=8) or clonidine solution (Group 7, 225 µg/day, n=4).
resultsThe surgical procedure was associated with significant peri-incisional tactile allodynia. There was a dose-dependent effect of MDT3 in partially reversing the peri-incisional tactile allodynia, with maximum pain relief relative to Sham at 72 hours. Daily injections of bupivacaine (30 mg), but not clonidine (up to 225 µg), completely reversed allodynia within 48 hours. There was a statistically significant correlation between the dose of MDT3 and cumulative withdrawal threshold from 4 hours through the conclusion of the study on day 7.
conclusionThese data suggest that a sustained-release clonidine depot may be a viable nonopioid, nonamide anesthetic therapy for the treatment of acute postsurgical nociceptive sensitization.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.