Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34448751›Full record

ReviewPain2021

Preclinical models of endometriosis and interstitial cystitis/bladder pain syndrome: an Innovative Medicines Initiative-PainCare initiative to improve their value for translational research in pelvic pain.

Paulina Nunez-Badinez, Bianca De Leo, Alexis Laux-Biehlmann, Anja Hoffmann, Thomas M Zollner, Philippa T K Saunders, Ioannis Simitsidellis, Ana Charrua, Francisco Cruz, Raul Gomez and 12 more

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Pain, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
4.2field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 28 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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

22 authors at 11 institutions in 5 countries.

Paulina Nunez-BadinezBayer AG, Research & Development, Pharmaceuticals, Berlin, Germany.
Bianca De LeoBayer AG, Research & Development, Pharmaceuticals, Berlin, Germany.
Alexis Laux-BiehlmannBayer AG, Research & Development, Pharmaceuticals, Berlin, Germany.
Anja HoffmannBayer AG, Research & Development, Pharmaceuticals, Berlin, Germany.
Thomas M ZollnerBayer AG, Research & Development, Pharmaceuticals, Berlin, Germany.
Philippa T K SaundersCentre for Inflammation Research, The University of Edinburgh, Queen's Medical Research Institute, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.
Ioannis SimitsidellisCentre for Inflammation Research, The University of Edinburgh, Queen's Medical Research Institute, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.
Ana CharruaI3S-Instituto de Investigação e Inovação em Saúde, and Faculty of Medicine of Porto, Porto, Portugal.
Francisco CruzI3S-Instituto de Investigação e Inovação em Saúde, and Faculty of Medicine of Porto, Porto, Portugal.
Raul GomezInstituto de Investigación Sanitaria INCLIVA, Valencia, Spain.
Miguel Angel TejadaInstituto de Investigación Sanitaria INCLIVA, Valencia, Spain.
Stephen B McMahonNeurorestoration Group, Wolfson Centre for Age Related Diseases, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.
Laure Lo ReNeurorestoration Group, Wolfson Centre for Age Related Diseases, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.
Florent BarthasGrünenthal GmbH, Aachen, Germany.
Katy VincentNuffield Department of Women's and Reproductive Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Judy BirchPelvic Pain Support Network, Poole, United Kingdom.
Jane MeijlinkInternational Painful Bladder Foundation, Naarden, the Netherlands.
Lone HummelshojEndometriosis.org, London, United Kingdom.
Patrick J SweeneyActual Analytics, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.
J Douglas ArmstrongActual Analytics, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.
Rolf-Detlef TreedeDepartment of Neurophysiology, Centre for Biomedicine and Medical Technology Mannheim, University of Heidelberg, Mannheim, Germany.
Jens NagelBayer AG, Research & Development, Pharmaceuticals, Berlin, Germany.
Bayer (Germany) · DEi3S - Instituto de Investigação e Inovação em Saúde, Universidade do Porto · PTINCLIVA Health Research Institute · ESKing's College London · GBUniversity of Edinburgh · GBEndometriosis · GBGrünenthal Group (Germany) · DEHeidelberg University · DEHersenstichting · NLQueen's Medical Centre · GBUniversity of Oxford · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/N024524/1National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research NC/C011201/1National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research NC/C012108/1National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research NC/C012201/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

abstractEndometriosis (ENDO) and interstitial cystitis/bladder pain syndrome (IC/BPS) are chronic pain conditions for which better treatments are urgently needed. Development of new therapies with proven clinical benefit has been slow. We have conducted a review of existing preclinical in vivo models for ENDO and IC/BPS in rodents, discussed to what extent they replicate the phenotype and pain experience of patients, as well as their relevance for translational research. In 1009 publications detailing ENDO models, 41% used autologous, 26% syngeneic, 18% xenograft, and 11% allogeneic tissue in transplantation models. Intraperitoneal injection of endometrial tissue was the subcategory with the highest construct validity score for translational research. From 1055 IC/BPS publications, most interventions were bladder centric (85%), followed by complex mechanisms (8%) and stress-induced models (7%). Within these categories, the most frequently used models were instillation of irritants (92%), autoimmune (43%), and water avoidance stress (39%), respectively. Notably, although pelvic pain is a hallmark of both conditions and a key endpoint for development of novel therapies, only a small proportion of the studies (models of ENDO: 0.5%-12% and models of IC/BPS: 20%-44%) examined endpoints associated with pain. Moreover, only 2% and 3% of publications using models of ENDO and IC/BPS investigated nonevoked pain endpoints. This analysis highlights the wide variety of models used, limiting reproducibility and translation of results. We recommend refining models so that they better reflect clinical reality, sharing protocols, and using standardized endpoints to improve reproducibility. We are addressing this in our project Innovative Medicines Initiative-PainCare/Translational Research in Pelvic Pain.

Indexed as

Cystitis, InterstitialEndometriosisFemaleHumansPelvic PainReproducibility of ResultsTranslational Research, Biomedical

Identifiers

PMID34448751
PMCPMC8374713
OpenAlexW3136478307

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.