| Title |
Application of the chronic constriction injury of the partial sciatic nerve model to assess acupuncture analgesia
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Pain Research, September 2017
|
| DOI | 10.2147/jpr.s139324 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Mu-Jun Zhi, Kun Liu, Zhou-Li Zheng, Xun He, Tie Li, Guang Sun, Meng Zhang, Fu-Chun Wang, Xin-Yan Gao, Bing Zhu |
| Abstract |
To validate and explore the application of a rat model of chronic constriction injury to the partial sciatic nerve in investigation of acupuncture analgesia. Chronic constriction injury of the sciatic nerve (CCI) and chronic constriction injury of the partial sciatic nerve (CCIp) models were generated by ligating either the sciatic nerve trunk or its branches in rats. Both models were evaluated via paw mechanical withdrawal latency (PMWL), paw mechanical withdrawal threshold (PMWT), nociceptive reflex-induced electromyogram (C-fiber reflex EMG), and dorsal root ganglion immunohistochemistry. Electroacupuncture (EA) was performed at GB30 to study the analgesic effects on neuropathic pain and the underlying mechanisms. Following ligation of the common peroneal and tibial nerves, CCIp rats exhibited hindlimb dysfunction, hind paw shrinkage and lameness, mirroring those of CCI rats (generated by ligating the sciatic nerve trunk). Compared to presurgery measurements, CCIp and CCI modeling significantly decreased the PMWL and PMWT. EA at GB30 increased the PMWL and PMWT in both CCI and CCIp rats. Calcitonin gene-related polypeptide and substance P expressions were apparently increased in both CCI and CCIp groups, but were not different from each other. The C-fiber reflex EMG of the biceps femoris was preserved in CCIp rats, but it could not be recorded in CCI rats on the 5th day after nerve ligation. The C-fiber reflex EMG was reduced at 0, 1, and 2 minutes after EA in CCIp rats, but only at 0 and 1 minute after EA in normal rats. The CCIp model is better than the CCI model for studying acupuncture analgesia on chronic neuropathic pain and the underlying mechanisms. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Philippines | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 27 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 15% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 7% |
| Researcher | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 11 | 41% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 4 | 15% |
| Neuroscience | 3 | 11% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 11% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 11% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 12 | 44% |
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 18 October 2017.
All research outputs
#17,917,778
of 23,006,268 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Pain Research
#1,341
of 1,762 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#226,736
of 316,298 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Pain Research
#38
of 50 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,006,268 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,762 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 20th percentile – i.e., 20% 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 316,298 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% 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 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.