Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37207181›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in neuroscience2023

Anesthesia and analgesia for experimental craniotomy in mice and rats: a systematic scoping review comparing the years 2009 and 2019.

Hannah King, Maria Reiber, Vanessa Philippi, Helen Stirling, Katharina Aulehner, Marion Bankstahl, André Bleich, Verena Buchecker, Aylina Glasenapp, Paulin Jirkof and 5 more

Open access · goldAbstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in neuroscience, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
3.1field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Behavioral Assessment of Tramadol and Meloxicam Effects on Postoperative Pain in a Rat Craniotomy Model.Journal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science : JAALAS · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Hannah KingInstitute of Pharmacology, Toxicology, and Pharmacy, Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Maria ReiberInstitute of Pharmacology, Toxicology, and Pharmacy, Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Vanessa PhilippiInstitute of Pharmacology, Toxicology, and Pharmacy, Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Helen StirlingInstitute of Pharmacology, Toxicology, and Pharmacy, Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Katharina AulehnerInstitute of Pharmacology, Toxicology, and Pharmacy, Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Marion BankstahlHannover Medical School, Institute for Laboratory Animal Science, Hanover, Germany.
André BleichHannover Medical School, Institute for Laboratory Animal Science, Hanover, Germany.
Verena BucheckerInstitute of Pharmacology, Toxicology, and Pharmacy, Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Aylina GlasenappHannover Medical School, Institute for Laboratory Animal Science, Hanover, Germany.
Paulin JirkofOffice for Animal Welfare and 3Rs, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Nina MiljanovicInstitute of Pharmacology, Toxicology, and Pharmacy, Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Katharina SchönhoffInstitute of Pharmacology, Toxicology, and Pharmacy, Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Lara von SchumannInstitute of Pharmacology, Toxicology, and Pharmacy, Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Cathalijn LeenaarsHannover Medical School, Institute for Laboratory Animal Science, Hanover, Germany.
Heidrun PotschkaInstitute of Pharmacology, Toxicology, and Pharmacy, Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München · DEMedizinische Hochschule Hannover · DEUniversity of Zurich · CH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Experimental craniotomies are a common surgical procedure in neuroscience. Because inadequate analgesia appears to be a problem in animal-based research, we conducted this review and collected information on management of craniotomy-associated pain in laboratory mice and rats. A comprehensive search and screening resulted in the identification of 2235 studies, published in 2009 and 2019, describing craniotomy in mice and/or rats. While key features were extracted from all studies, detailed information was extracted from a random subset of 100 studies/year. Reporting of perioperative analgesia increased from 2009 to 2019. However, the majority of studies from both years did not report pharmacologic pain management. Moreover, reporting of multimodal treatments remained at a low level, and monotherapeutic approaches were more common. Among drug groups, reporting of pre- and postoperative administration of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, opioids, and local anesthetics in 2019 exceeded that of 2009. In summary, these results suggest that inadequate analgesia and oligoanalgesia are persistent issues associated with experimental intracranial surgery. This underscores the need for intensified training of those working with laboratory rodents subjected to craniotomies. Systematic review registration: https://osf.io/7d4qe.

Indexed as

animal welfaremultimodal analgesianeuroscienceneurosurgerypainpostoperative painrefinementsurgery

Identifiers

PMID37207181
PMCPMC10188949
OpenAlexW4368405217

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.