↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Pain assessment in animal models: do we need further studies?

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Pain Research, May 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
52 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
135 Mendeley
Title
Pain assessment in animal models: do we need further studies?
Published in
Journal of Pain Research, May 2014
DOI 10.2147/jpr.s59161
Pubmed ID
Authors

Carmelo Gigliuto, Manuela De Gregori, Valentina Malafoglia, William Raffaeli, Christian Compagnone, Livia Visai, Paola Petrini, Maria Antonietta Avanzini, Carolina Muscoli, Jacopo Viganò, Francesco Calabrese, Tommaso Dominioni, Massimo Allegri, Lorenzo Cobianchi

Abstract

In the last two decades, animal models have become important tools in understanding and treating pain, and in predicting analgesic efficacy. Although rodent models retain a dominant role in the study of pain mechanisms, large animal models may predict human biology and pharmacology in certain pain conditions more accurately. Taking into consideration the anatomical and physiological characteristics common to man and pigs (median body size, digestive apparatus, number, size, distribution and communication of vessels in dermal skin, epidermal-dermal junctions, the immunoreactivity of peptide nerve fibers, distribution of nociceptive and non-nociceptive fiber classes, and changes in axonal excitability), swines seem to provide the most suitable animal model for pain assessment. Locomotor function, clinical signs, and measurements (respiratory rate, heart rate, blood pressure, temperature, electromyography), behavior (bright/quiet, alert, responsive, depressed, unresponsive), plasma concentration of substance P and cortisol, vocalization, lameness, and axon reflex vasodilatation by laser Doppler imaging have been used to assess pain, but none of these evaluations have proved entirely satisfactory. It is necessary to identify new methods for evaluating pain in large animals (particularly pigs), because of their similarities to humans. This could lead to improved assessment of pain and improved analgesic treatment for both humans and laboratory animals.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 135 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 132 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 26 19%
Student > Master 26 19%
Student > Bachelor 15 11%
Researcher 11 8%
Professor 8 6%
Other 24 18%
Unknown 25 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 26 19%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 21 16%
Medicine and Dentistry 16 12%
Neuroscience 11 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 4%
Other 28 21%
Unknown 27 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 30 May 2014.
All research outputs
#20,656,820
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Pain Research
#1,575
of 1,979 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#178,331
of 242,176 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Pain Research
#16
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,979 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.2. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 242,176 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.