Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30674967›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2019

Evaluating analgesic efficacy and administration route following craniotomy in mice using the grimace scale.

Chulmin Cho, Vassilia Michailidis, Irene Lecker, Chereen Collymore, David Hanwell, Mary Loka, Matthew Danesh, Christine Pham, Paige Urban, Robert P Bonin and 1 more

Erratum issuedOpen access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 37 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
8.1field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

37 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 53 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Development of an HInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review of Rat (Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2023
    Review
  17. Article
  18. Grimace scale assessment duringFrontiers in veterinary science · 2023
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Chulmin ChoDept. of Psychology, University of Toronto Mississauga, Mississauga, ON, M9A1C5, Canada.
Vassilia MichailidisCell and Systems Biology, University of Toronto Mississauga, Mississauga, ON, M9A1C5, Canada.
Irene LeckerLeslie Dan Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, M5S 3M2, Canada.
Chereen CollymoreDivision of Comparative Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, M5S 1A8, Canada.
David HanwellResearch Oversight and Compliance Office, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
Mary LokaDept. of Psychology, University of Toronto Mississauga, Mississauga, ON, M9A1C5, Canada.
Matthew DaneshDept. of Psychology, University of Toronto Mississauga, Mississauga, ON, M9A1C5, Canada.
Christine PhamLeslie Dan Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, M5S 3M2, Canada.
Paige UrbanLeslie Dan Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, M5S 3M2, Canada.
Robert P BoninLeslie Dan Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, M5S 3M2, Canada. rob.bonin@utoronto.ca.
Loren J MartinDept. of Psychology, University of Toronto Mississauga, Mississauga, ON, M9A1C5, Canada. lj.martin@utoronto.ca.
University of Toronto · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Most research laboratories abide by guidelines and mandates set by their research institution regarding the administration of analgesics to control pain during the postoperative period. Unfortunately, measuring pain originating from the head is difficult, making adequate decisions regarding pain control following stereotaxic surgery problematic. In addition, most postsurgical analgesia protocols require multiple injections over several days, which may cause stress and distress during a critical recovery period. Here we sought to (1) assess the degree of postoperative pain following craniotomy in mice, (2) compare the efficacy of three common rodent analgesics (carprofen, meloxicam and buprenorphine) for reducing this pain and (3) determine whether the route of administration (injected or self-administered through the drinking supply) influenced pain relief post-craniotomy. Using the mouse grimace scale (MGS), we found that injectable analgesics were significantly more effective at relieving post-craniotomy pain, however, both routes of administration decreased pain scores in the first 24 h postsurgery. Specifically, buprenorphine administered independently of administration route was the most effective at reducing MGS scores, however, female mice showed greater sensitivity to carprofen when administered through the water supply. Although it is necessary to provide laboratory animals with analgesics after an invasive procedure, there remains a gap in the literature regarding the degree of craniotomy-related pain in rodents and the efficacy of alternative routes of administration. Our study highlights the limitations of administering drugs through the drinking supply, even at doses that are considered to be higher than those currently recommended by most research institutions for treating pain of mild to moderate severity.

Identifiers

PMID30674967
PMCPMC6344523
OpenAlexW2949452881

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.