ArticlePloS one2026
Evoked temporal summation in dogs to assess pain central sensitization and modulation - A feasibility study.
Article in PloS one, 2026. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Central sensitization and pain endogenous controls imbalance were reported in humans affected by chronic pain. In cats, nociplastic changes, such as the wind-up phenomenon, (i.e., decreased tolerance to repeated stimuli) were described using a validated mechanical device inducing temporal summation of pain (TSP). The study aim was to validate this method in dogs and to describe pro- or anti-nociceptive profiles occurring with canine osteoarthritis (OA). Healthy (N = 4) and OA (N = 31) dogs were assessed. Six TSP stimulation protocols were tested for their reliability and specificity, at mid-antebrachium (0.38 Hz at 2-4Newtons [N], 0.25 Hz or 0.50 Hz at 4N) or tail-base (0.25 Hz or 0.50 Hz at 2N). Endogenous facilitatory, or inhibitory, controls were assessed using a pressure pain threshold (PPT) before and after TSP, or conditioning pain modulation (CPM) via an ischemic model, respectively. The PPT pre/post stimuli were used to calculate ratio of facilitation (< 0%) or functional inhibition (> 7%). Statistical analyses included intraclass coefficient of correlation, Spearman's correlations, Fisher and Mann U tests, with α = 0.05. The response to mechanical TSP scores tended to be moderately reliable, while tail-base stimulation decreased inter-trials variability compared to mid-antebrachium for healthy dogs (P = 0.029). The response was specific, OA dogs tolerated 50% less stimulations than healthy dogs at 0.5 Hz frequency and 2N (P = 0.008). This protocol led to spinal hyperexcitability; among facilitated OA dogs, 45% presented functional inhibition versus 73% for the non-facilitated dogs. No correlations were found between radiographic score, orthopedic score, response to mechanical TSP or age with the facilitation or inhibition ratios (P > 0.173). OA dogs developed central sensitization reflected by the wind-up phenomenon. An imbalance in favor of endogenous facilitatory controls was observed suggesting inhibitory control fatigue and neuroplasticity. Characterizing endogenous pain modulation will enable better management of OA pain by preserving inhibitory control and preventing its fatigue.
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.