↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

The effect of local/topical analgesics on incisional pain in a pig model

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Pain Research, September 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
38 Mendeley
Title
The effect of local/topical analgesics on incisional pain in a pig model
Published in
Journal of Pain Research, September 2017
DOI 10.2147/jpr.s144949
Pubmed ID
Authors

David Castel, Itai Sabbag, Sigal Meilin

Abstract

Interest in the development of new topical/local drug administration for blocking pain at peripheral sites, with maximum drug activity and minimal systemic effects, is on the rise. In the review article by Kopsky and Stahl, four critical barriers in the process of research and development of topical analgesics were indicated. The active pharmaceutical ingredient (API) and the formulation are among the major challenges. The road to the development of such drugs passes through preclinical studies. These studies, if planned correctly, should serve as guidance for choosing the right API and formulation. Although rodent models for pain continue to provide valuable data on the mechanisms driving pain, their use in developing topical and localized treatment approaches is limited for technical (intraplate injection area is small) as well as mechanical reasons (non-similarity to human skin and innervation). It has been previously shown that pigs are comparable to humans in ways that make them a better choice for evaluating topical and local analgesics. The aim of this study was to summarize several experiments that used pigs for testing postoperative pain in an incisional pain model (skin incision [SI] and skin and muscle incision [SMI]). At the end of the surgery, the animals were treated with different doses of bupivacaine solution (Marcaine(®)), bupivacaine liposomal formulation (Exparel(®)) or ropivacaine solution (Naropin). Von Frey testing demonstrated a decrease in the animals' sensitivity to mechanical stimulation expressed as an increase in the withdrawal force following local treatment. These changes reflect the clinical condition in the level as well as in the duration of the response. These data indicate a good resemblance between pig and human skin and suggest that use of these animals in the preclinical phase of developing topical analgesics can, to some extent, release the bottleneck.

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 38 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 38 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 13%
Other 4 11%
Student > Master 3 8%
Professor 2 5%
Other 4 11%
Unknown 12 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 11 29%
Engineering 3 8%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 5%
Other 5 13%
Unknown 12 32%
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 08 September 2017.
All research outputs
#15,478,452
of 23,001,641 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Pain Research
#1,161
of 1,759 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#198,321
of 316,305 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Pain Research
#35
of 50 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,001,641 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,759 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.0. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% 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 316,305 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 50 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.