Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33635391›Full record

ArticleExperimental brain research2021

Aberrant plasticity in musculoskeletal pain: a failure of homeostatic control?

Tribikram Thapa, Thomas Graven-Nielsen, Siobhan M Schabrun

2 registry-linked trialsOpen access · greenAbstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Experimental brain research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 26% 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.

NCT05252247 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2022, after this paper: background citation

The Effects of Immobilisation and Exercise on Homeostatic Plasticity Mechanisms in Healthy Participants

TypeinterventionalSponsorAalborg UniversityRan2022 to 2022Enrolled11ConditionsHealthyArmsImmobilisation, Exercise
NCT06197529 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2023, after this paper: background citation

Is Nociceptive Processing Evoked by Heat Homeostatically Regulated: A Contact-heat Evoked Potentials Study

TypeinterventionalSponsorAalborg UniversityRan2023 to 2024Enrolled18ConditionsHealthyArmsHomeostatic Plasticity, Topical alone (Capsaicin 8% Patch), Placebo Patch, Homeostatic Plasticity (Sham)
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. 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

3 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Tribikram ThapaSchool of Science and Health, Western Sydney University, Penrith, NSW, 2751, Australia.
Thomas Graven-NielsenDepartment of Health Science and Technology, Center for Neuroplasticity and Pain (CNAP), Faculty of Medicine, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark.
Siobhan M SchabrunNeuroscience Research Australia, Margarete Ainsworth Building, Barker Street, Randwick, Sydney, NSW, 2031, Australia. s.schabrun@neura.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9083-3107
Aalborg University · DKNeuroscience Research Australia · AUWestern Sydney University · AU

Funding

Danish national Research Foundation DNRF121National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia 1105040
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Aberrant synaptic plasticity is hypothesised to underpin chronic pain. Yet, synaptic plasticity regulated by homeostatic mechanisms have received limited attention in pain. We investigated homeostatic plasticity in the human primary motor cortex (M1) of 21 healthy individuals in response to experimentally induced muscle pain for several days. Experimental pain was induced by injecting nerve growth factor into the muscle belly of the right extensor carpi radialis brevis muscle. Pain and disability were monitored until day 21. Homeostatic plasticity was induced on day 0, 2, 4, 6, and 14 in the left M1 using anodal transcranial direct stimulation (tDCS) applied for 7 and 5 min, separated by a 3-min rest period. Motor-evoked potentials (MEP) to transcranial magnetic stimulation assessed the homeostatic response. On days 0 and 14, MEPs increased following the first block of tDCS (p < 0.004), and decreased following the second block of tDCS (p < 0.001), consistent with a normal homeostatic response. However, on days 2 (p = 0.07) and 4 (p = 0.7), the decrease in MEPs after the second block of tDCS was attenuated, representing an impaired homeostatic response. Findings demonstrate altered homeostatic plasticity in the M1 with the greatest alteration observed after 4 days of sustained pain. This study provides longitudinal insight into homeostatic plasticity in response to the development, maintenance, and resolution of pain over the course of 14 days.

Indexed as

Motor CortexMusculoskeletal PainTranscranial Direct Current StimulationEvoked Potentials, MotorHumansNeuronal PlasticityTranscranial Magnetic StimulationHomeostatic plasticityMusculoskeletal painNerve growth factorNon-invasive brain stimulation

Identifiers

PMID33635391
OpenAlexW3131042693

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.