ArticleHeliyon2025
Electrophysiological characteristics of neuropathic pain model in mice and a technique to evaluate peripheral nerve damage in the sciatic nerve.
Article in Heliyon, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Phase-Specific Evaluation of Sciatic Nerve Regeneration in Preclinical Studies: A Review of Functional Assessment, Emerging Therapies, and Translational Value.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Experimental neuropathic pain (NP) models were developed from peripheral injuries and are widely used for pain research. However, previously published methods and outcomes in the evaluation of sciatic nerve dysfunction vary widely across each report. In this study, we established the electrophysiological analysis of sensory nerve action potentials (SNAPs) and compound motor action potentials (CMAPs) as objective methods for evaluating sciatic nerve dysfunction and revealed the electrophysiological characteristics of NP mice models. Methods: We used male C57BL/6 J mice, C57BLKS/J lar- + Leprdb/+Leprdb (db/db) mice, and mouse models of paclitaxel-induced NP and spared nerve injury (SNI) surgery (10 mice in each group). For nerve conduction studies, we used evoked potential/electromyography apparatuses and bipolar electrodes as stimulating and recording electrodes for SNAPs and CMAPs. SNAPs were recorded from the sciatic nerve. For the distal motor latency and CMAPs amplitude measurements, we placed the cathode of the recording electrode on the gastrocnemius muscle. Results: In electrophysiological assessments, the SNI model showed the most severe sensory disturbance in SNAP with allodynia in the sciatic nerve. The db/db model showed moderate sensory disturbance with allodynia, whereas the paclitaxel model showed slight sensory disturbance but also with allodynia. Only the SNI model showed significantly lower amplitudes of CMAPs than those of normal mice, whereas the paclitaxel and db/db models showed sensory disturbance but no loss of motor function. Conclusions: We focused on the detailed methodology of electrophysiological assessment in experimental NP models. Our method of electrophysiological analysis of SNAPs and CMAPs of the sciatic nerve was well reflected in the pain withdrawal tests performed in each NP model and may be useful for future research of NP in experimental NP models.
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.