Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34650279›Full record

SynthesisLab animal2021

A systematic review of porcine models in translational pain research.

Suzan Meijs, Martin Schmelz, Sigal Meilin, Winnie Jensen

Open access · greenAbstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Lab animal, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 20% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. On determining the mechanical nociceptive threshold in pigs: a reliability study.Frontiers in pain research (Lausanne, Switzerland) · 2023
    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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Suzan MeijsCenter for Neuroplasticity and Pain (CNAP), Department of Health, Science and Technology, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark. smeijs@hst.aau.dk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8045-806X
Martin SchmelzDepartment of Experimental Pain Research, MCTN, Medical Faculty Mannheim, Heidelberg University, Mannheim, Germany.
Sigal MeilinNeurology R&D Division, MD Biosciences, Ness Ziona, Israel.
Winnie JensenDepartment of Health, Science and Technology, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark.
Aalborg University · DKHeidelberg University · DE

Funding

Danmarks Grundforskningsfond (Danish National Research Foundation) DNRF121
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Translating basic pain research from rodents to humans has proven to be a challenging task. Efforts have been made to develop preclinical large animal models of pain, such as the pig. However, no consistent overview and comparison of pig models of pain are currently available. Therefore, in this review, our primary aim was to identify the available pig models in pain research and compare these models in terms of intensity and duration. First, we systematically searched Proquest, Scopus and Web of Science and compared the duration for which the pigs were significantly sensitized as well as the intensity of mechanical sensitization. We searched models within the specific field of pain and adjacent fields in which pain induction or assessment is relevant, such as pig production. Second, we compared assessment methodologies in surrogate pain models in humans and pigs to identify areas of overlap and possible improvement. Based on the literature search, 23 types of porcine pain models were identified; 13 of which could be compared quantitatively. The induced sensitization lasted from hours to months and intensities ranged from insignificant to the maximum attainable. We also found a near to complete overlap of assessment methodologies between human and pig models within the area of peripheral neurophysiology, which allows for direct comparison of results obtained in the two species. In spite of this overlap, further development of pain assessment methodologies is still needed. We suggest that central nervous system electrophysiology, such as electroencephalography, electrocorticography or intracortical recordings, may pave the way for future objective pain assessment.

Indexed as

ProteomicsTranslational Research, BiomedicalAnimalsModels, AnimalPainPain MeasurementSwine

Identifiers

PMID34650279
OpenAlexW3206402801

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.