Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30898855›Full record

ReviewPharmacological reviews2019

Core Outcome Measures in Preclinical Assessment of Candidate Analgesics.

S Stevens Negus

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Pharmacological reviews, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 59 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
59citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
7.4field-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

59 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 91 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. At the Intersection of Pain and Sleep: a Roadmap for Preclinical Pain Research.Frontiers in pain research (Lausanne, Switzerland) · 2025
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

S Stevens NegusDepartment of Pharmacology and Toxicology, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia ssnegus@vcu.edu.
Virginia Commonwealth University · US

Funding

Endocannabinoid modulation of pain-depressed behaviorR01DA030404 · NIDA · VIRGINIA COMMONWEALTH UNIVERSITY · PI NEGUS, SIDNEY S, SIM-SELLEY, LAURA J · 2011 to 2020
$3.7M
Neurobiology and Treatment of PainR01NS070715 · NINDS · VIRGINIA COMMONWEALTH UNIVERSITY · PI NEGUS, SIDNEY S, SELLEY, DANA E · 2009 to 2018
$3.3M
NIDA NIH HHS R01 DA030404NINDS NIH HHS R01 NS070715
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

All preclinical procedures for analgesic drug discovery involve two components: 1) a "pain stimulus" (the principal independent variable), which is delivered to an experimental subject with the intention of producing a pain state; and 2) a "pain behavior" (the principal dependent variable), which is measured as evidence of that pain state. Candidate analgesics are then evaluated for their effectiveness to reduce the pain behavior, and results are used to prioritize drugs for advancement to clinical testing. This review describes a taxonomy of preclinical procedures organized into an "antinociception matrix" by reference to their types of pain stimulus (noxious, inflammatory, neuropathic, disease related) and pain behavior (unconditioned, classically conditioned, operant conditioned). Particular emphasis is devoted to pain behaviors and the behavioral principals that govern their expression, pharmacological modulation, and preclinical-to-clinical translation. Strengths and weaknesses are compared and contrasted for procedures using each type of behavioral outcome measure, and the following four recommendations are offered to promote strategic use of these procedures for preclinical-to-clinical analgesic drug testing. First, attend to the degree of homology between preclinical and clinical outcome measures, and use preclinical procedures with behavioral outcome measures homologous to clinically relevant outcomes in humans. Second, use combinations of preclinical procedures with complementary strengths and weaknesses to optimize both sensitivity and selectivity of preclinical testing. Third, take advantage of failed clinical translation to identify drugs that can be back-translated preclinically as active negative controls. Finally, increase precision of procedure labels by indicating both the pain stimulus and the pain behavior in naming preclinical procedures.

Indexed as

Outcome Assessment, Health CareAnalgesicsAnimalsBehavior, AnimalConditioning, OperantDisease Models, AnimalDrug DiscoveryDrug Evaluation, PreclinicalHumansPainAnalgesics

Identifiers

PMID30898855
PMCPMC6448246
OpenAlexW2924531314

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.