Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36807667›Full record

ArticleExperimental physiology2023

The peripheral vascular responses in non-freezing cold injury and matched controls.

Clare M Eglin, Jennifer Wright, Matthew J Maley, Sarah Hollis, Heather Massey, Hugh Montgomery, Michael J Tipton

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Experimental physiology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Clare M EglinExtreme Environments Laboratory, School of Sport, Health and Exercise Science, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-3848-6515
Jennifer WrightExtreme Environments Laboratory, School of Sport, Health and Exercise Science, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-6449-1230
Matthew J MaleyEnvironmental Ergonomics Research Centre, Loughborough School of Design and Creative Arts, Loughborough University, Loughborough, UK.
Sarah HollisRegional Occupational Health Team (ROHT) Catterick, Catterick Garrison, UK.
Heather MasseyExtreme Environments Laboratory, School of Sport, Health and Exercise Science, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-7542-513X
Hugh MontgomeryDepartment of Medicine, University College London, London, UK.
Michael J TiptonExtreme Environments Laboratory, School of Sport, Health and Exercise Science, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-7928-8451
University of Portsmouth · GBDuchess Of Kent Hospital · GBLoughborough University · GBUniversity College London · GB

Funding

Department of Health
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

NEW

findingsWhat is the central question of this study? Does non-freezing cold injury (NFCI) alter normal peripheral vascular function? What is the main finding and its importance? Individuals with NFCI were more cold sensitive (rewarmed more slowly and felt more discomfort) than controls. Vascular tests indicated that extremity endothelial function was preserved with NFCI and that sympathetic vasoconstrictor response might be reduced. The pathophysiology underpinning the cold sensitivity associated with NFCI thus remains to be identified. ABSTRACT: The impact of non-freezing cold injury (NFCI) on peripheral vascular function was investigated. Individuals with NFCI (NFCI group) and closely matched controls with either similar (COLD group) or limited (CON group) previous cold exposure were compared (n = 16). Peripheral cutaneous vascular responses to deep inspiration (DI), occlusion (PORH), local cutaneous heating (LH) and iontophoresis of acetylcholine and sodium nitroprusside were investigated. The responses to a cold sensitivity test (CST) involving immersion of a foot in 15°C water for 2 min followed by spontaneous rewarming, and a foot cooling protocol (footplate cooled from 34°C to 15°C), were also examined. The vasoconstrictor response to DI was lower in NFCI compared to CON (toe: 73 (28)% vs. 91 (17)%; P = 0.003). The responses to PORH, LH and iontophoresis were not reduced compared to either COLD or CON. During the CST, toe skin temperature rewarmed more slowly in NFCI than COLD or CON (10 min: 27.4 (2.3)°C vs. 30.7 (3.7)°C and 31.7 (3.9)°C, P < 0.05, respectively); however, no differences were observed during the footplate cooling. NFCI were more cold-intolerant (P < 0.0001) and reported colder and more uncomfortable feet during the CST and footplate cooling than COLD and CON (P < 0.05). NFCI showed a decreased sensitivity to sympathetic vasoconstrictor activation than CON and greater cold sensitivity (CST) compared to COLD and CON. None of the other vascular function tests indicated endothelial dysfunction. However, NFCI perceived their extremities to be colder and more uncomfortable/painful than the controls.

Indexed as

Cold InjuryCold TemperatureHumansSkin TemperatureTemperatureVasoconstrictor AgentsVasoconstrictor Agentscold injurypathophysiologyvascular

Identifiers

PMID36807667
PMCPMC10103892
OpenAlexW4321375344

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.