Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31461480›Full record

ArticlePloS one2019

A systematic summary and comparison of animal models for chemotherapy induced (peripheral) neuropathy (CIPN).

Suvarna Gadgil, Mehmet Ergün, Sandra A van den Heuvel, Selina E van der Wal, Gert Jan Scheffer, Carlijn R Hooijmans

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
3.7field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 60 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. The effects of exercise on chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy symptoms in cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2021
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  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

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Suvarna GadgilDepartment of Anesthesiology, Pain and Palliative Medicine, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Mehmet ErgünDepartment of Anesthesiology, Pain and Palliative Medicine, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Sandra A van den HeuvelDepartment of Anesthesiology, Pain and Palliative Medicine, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Selina E van der WalDepartment of Anesthesiology, Pain and Palliative Medicine, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Gert Jan SchefferDepartment of Anesthesiology, Pain and Palliative Medicine, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Carlijn R HooijmansDepartment of Anesthesiology, Pain and Palliative Medicine, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-6435-5714
Radboud University Nijmegen · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Despite the large amount of human and experimental studies no effective (prophylactic) treatment exists for chemotherapy induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN), a disabling side effect of many cancer treatments. One of the underlying reasons for this could be that often the preclinical animal models used are not the best representation of the clinical situation. We therefore present a systematic summary and comparison of all animal models currently described in literature for CIPN focusing on stimulus evoked pain-like behaviour and neurophysiological alterations in nerve function (650 included papers, and a comparison of 183 models), that resulted in a clear overview of the most effective and robust CIPN models using an administration route used in clinical practice. Using our three-step approach (step 1: efficacy; step; 2 robustness and step 3: mimicking the clinical situation) we show that all mice CIPN models treated with either paclitaxel or cisplatin using an administration route used in clinical practice seem suitable models. Three specific models using paclitaxel or cisplatin that stand out are 1) C57BL/6 female mice receiving paclitaxel and 2) CD1 male mice receiving paclitaxel and 3) C57BL/6 male mice receiving cisplatin. This overview may help scientists selecting suitable CIPN models for their research. We hypothesize that by using effective and robust animal models that mimic the clinical situation as much as possible, the translational value of preclinical study results with respect to the potential of identifying promising treatments for CIPN in the future, will prove. The methodology described in this paper, aimed at comparing animal models, is novel and can be used by scientist in other research fields as well.

Indexed as

AnimalsAntineoplastic AgentsDisease Models, AnimalFemaleHumansMalePeripheral Nervous System DiseasesRandom AllocationSample SizeAntineoplastic Agents

Identifiers

PMID31461480
PMCPMC6713358
OpenAlexW2971010722

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.