ArticleFrontiers in pain research (Lausanne, Switzerland)2023
On determining the mechanical nociceptive threshold in pigs: a reliability study.
Article in Frontiers in pain research (Lausanne, Switzerland), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Feasibility and reliability of pressure algometry for mechanical nociceptive threshold quantification in lambs in a field environment.Frontiers in pain research (Lausanne, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Unravelling pain in Göttingen Minipigs undergoing experimentally induced closed-chest myocardial infarction: a prospective cohort study.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Part I: understanding pain in pigs-basic knowledge about pain assessment, measures and therapy.Porcine health management · 2025Review
- Mechanical and thermal thresholds before and after application of a conditioning stimulus in healthy Göttingen Minipigs.PloS one · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: A pressure algometer is a valuable tool for assessing the mechanical nociceptive threshold (MNT) in clinical pain studies. Recent research has turned to large animal models of pain because of the closer anatomy and physiology to humans. Although the reliability and usefulness of the MNT have been extensively validated in humans, similar data from large animals is still sparse. Objective: Therefore, the aim of the current study was to evaluate the reliability (within- and between-session) of MNT in the forelimb of pigs using a pressure algometer. Methods: Nine animals were used (23-40 kg), and MNTs were measured at both the right and left limbs at three different sessions, with three repetitions per session. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was used as a metric for relative reliability. The standard error of measurement (SEM) and coefficient of variation (CV) was used to assess absolute reliability. Systematic bias was also evaluated. Results: The average ICC was found to be 0.71 and 0.45 for the between-session and within-session, respectively. CV ranged from 17.9% to 20.5%, with a grand average of 19.1%. The grand average SEM was 249.5 kPa (16.6%). No systematic differences were found for the MNT between sessions, which suggests that there was no habituation to the stimulus. Conclusion: The reliability indices obtained in this study are comparable to results obtained in other species or anatomical regions and substantiate the use of the pressure algometer as a valuable tool to investigate the nociceptive system in pigs and translation to the human nociceptive withdrawal reflex.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.