Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34837072›Full record

ReviewNature reviews. Neuroscience2022

Innovations and advances in modelling and measuring pain in animals.

Katelyn E Sadler, Jeffrey S Mogil, Cheryl L Stucky

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Nature reviews. Neuroscience, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 113 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
113citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
25.4field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

113 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 174 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Chronic Pain and Cognitive Dysfunction: Clinical Implement, Mechanism, and Therapeutic Strategy.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2026
    Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

53 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Katelyn E SadlerDepartment of Cell Biology, Neurobiology and Anatomy, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2078-3527
Jeffrey S MogilDepartment of Psychology, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1359-5720
Cheryl L StuckyDepartment of Cell Biology, Neurobiology and Anatomy, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI, USA. cstucky@mcw.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4966-6594
Medical College of Wisconsin · USMcGill University · CA

Funding

Nociceptive Mechanisms Underlying Sickle Cell PainR01NS070711 · NINDS · MEDICAL COLLEGE OF WISCONSIN · PI Bonnie N Dittel, Cheryl Louise Stucky · 2009 to 2026
$8.7M
FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS OF DISTINCT NOCICEPTOR POPULATIONSR01NS040538 · NINDS · MEDICAL COLLEGE OF WISCONSIN · PI STUCKY, CHERYL LOUISE · 2000 to 2019
$6.2M
Pain Mechanisms in Fabry DiseaseR37NS108278 · NINDS · MEDICAL COLLEGE OF WISCONSIN · PI STUCKY, CHERYL LOUISE · 2019 to 2025
$5.6M
Sickle cell disease gut dysbiosis effects on CNS pain processingK99HL155791 · NHLBI · MEDICAL COLLEGE OF WISCONSIN · PI SADLER, KATELYN · 2021 to 2022
$230k
CIHRNHLBI NIH HHS K99 HL155791NINDS NIH HHS R01 NS040538NINDS NIH HHS R01 NS070711NINDS NIH HHS R37 NS108278
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Best practices in preclinical algesiometry (pain behaviour testing) have shifted over the past decade as a result of technological advancements, the continued dearth of translational progress and the emphasis that funding institutions and journals have placed on rigour and reproducibility. Here we describe the changing trends in research methods by analysing the methods reported in preclinical pain publications from the past 40 years, with a focus on the last 5 years. We also discuss how the status quo may be hampering translational success. This discussion is centred on four fundamental decisions that apply to every pain behaviour experiment: choice of subject (model organism), choice of assay (pain-inducing injury), laboratory environment and choice of outcome measures. Finally, we discuss how human tissues, which are increasingly accessible, can be used to validate the translatability of targets and mechanisms identified in animal pain models.

Indexed as

Animal Testing AlternativesDisease Models, AnimalAnimalsHumansModels, AnimalPainPain Measurement

Identifiers

PMID34837072
PMCPMC9098196
OpenAlexW3217099475

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.