Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33759294›Full record

SynthesisEuropean journal of pain (London, England)2021

Human surrogate models of central sensitization: A critical review and practical guide.

Charles Quesada, Anna Kostenko, Idy Ho, Caterina Leone, Zahra Nochi, Alexandre Stouffs, Matthias Wittayer, Ombretta Caspani, Nanna Brix Finnerup, André Mouraux and 5 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in European journal of pain (London, England), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 45 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
45citing 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

45 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 87 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Observational
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  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

15 authors at 7 institutions in 6 countries.

Charles QuesadaNeuroPain lab, Lyon Centre for Neuroscience Inserm U1028, Lyon, France.ORCID 0000-0001-5042-9639
Anna KostenkoDepartment of Neurophysiology, Mannheim center for Translational Neurosciences, Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany.
Idy HoNuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Caterina LeoneDepartment of Human Neuroscience, Sapienza University, Rome, Italy.
Zahra NochiDanish Pain Research Center, Dept of Clinical Medicine, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.
Alexandre StouffsInstitute of Neuroscience (IoNS), Université Catholique de Louvain (UCLouvain), Ottignies-Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium.
Matthias WittayerDepartment of Neurophysiology, Mannheim center for Translational Neurosciences, Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany.
Ombretta CaspaniDepartment of Neurophysiology, Mannheim center for Translational Neurosciences, Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany.
Nanna Brix FinnerupDanish Pain Research Center, Dept of Clinical Medicine, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.
André MourauxInstitute of Neuroscience (IoNS), Université Catholique de Louvain (UCLouvain), Ottignies-Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium.
Gisèle PickeringUniversité Clermont Auvergne Neurodol, Clermont-Ferrand, France.
Irene TraceyNuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Andrea TruiniDepartment of Human Neuroscience, Sapienza University, Rome, Italy.
Rolf-Detlef TreedeDepartment of Neurophysiology, Mannheim center for Translational Neurosciences, Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany.
Luis Garcia-LarreaNeuroPain lab, Lyon Centre for Neuroscience Inserm U1028, Lyon, France.
Heidelberg University · DEAarhus University · DKInserm · FRSapienza University of Rome · ITUCLouvain · BEUniversity of Oxford · GBUniversité Clermont Auvergne · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAs in other fields of medicine, development of new medications for management of neuropathic pain has been difficult since preclinical rodent models do not necessarily translate to the clinics. Aside from ongoing pain with burning or shock-like qualities, neuropathic pain is often characterized by pain hypersensitivity (hyperalgesia and allodynia), most often towards mechanical stimuli, reflecting sensitization of neural transmission. DATA TREATMENT: We therefore performed a systematic literature review (PubMed-Medline, Cochrane, WoS, ClinicalTrials) and semi-quantitative meta-analysis of human pain models that aim to induce central sensitization, and generate hyperalgesia surrounding a real or simulated injury.

resultsFrom an initial set of 1569 reports, we identified and analysed 269 studies using more than a dozen human models of sensitization. Five of these models (intradermal or topical capsaicin, low- or high-frequency electrical stimulation, thermode-induced heat-injury) were found to reliably induce secondary hyperalgesia to pinprick and have been implemented in multiple laboratories. The ability of these models to induce dynamic mechanical allodynia was however substantially lower. The proportion of subjects who developed hypersensitivity was rarely provided, giving rise to significant reporting bias. In four of these models pharmacological profiles allowed to verify similarity to some clinical conditions, and therefore may inform basic research for new drug development.

conclusionsWhile there is no single "optimal" model of central sensitization, the range of validated and easy-to-use procedures in humans should be able to inform preclinical researchers on helpful potential biomarkers, thereby narrowing the translation gap between basic and clinical data. SIGNIFICANCE: Being able to mimic aspects of pathological pain directly in humans has a huge potential to understand pathophysiology and provide animal research with translatable biomarkers for drug development. One group of human surrogate models has proven to have excellent predictive validity: they respond to clinically active medications and do not respond to clinically inactive medications, including some that worked in animals but failed in the clinics. They should therefore inform basic research for new drug development.

Indexed as

Central Nervous System SensitizationNeuralgiaAnimalsCapsaicinHumansHyperalgesiaPain MeasurementCapsaicin

Identifiers

PMID33759294
PMCPMC8360051
OpenAlexW3138459365

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.