| Title |
The brain signature of paracetamol in healthy volunteers: a double-blind randomized trial
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Drug Design, Development and Therapy, July 2015
|
| DOI | 10.2147/dddt.s81004 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Gisèle Pickering, Adrian Kastler, Nicolas Macian, Bruno Pereira, Romain Valabrègue, Stéphane Lehericy, Louis Boyer, Claude Dubray, Betty Jean |
| Abstract |
Paracetamol's (APAP) mechanism of action suggests the implication of supraspinal structures but no neuroimaging study has been performed in humans. This randomized, double-blind, crossover, placebo-controlled trial in 17 healthy volunteers (NCT01562704) aimed to evaluate how APAP modulates pain-evoked functional magnetic resonance imaging signals. We used behavioral measures and functional magnetic resonance imaging to investigate the response to experimental thermal stimuli with APAP or placebo administration. Region-of-interest analysis revealed that activity in response to noxious stimulation diminished with APAP compared to placebo in prefrontal cortices, insula, thalami, anterior cingulate cortex, and periaqueductal gray matter. These findings suggest an inhibitory effect of APAP on spinothalamic tracts leading to a decreased activation of higher structures, and a top-down influence on descending inhibition. Further binding and connectivity studies are needed to evaluate how APAP modulates pain, especially in the context of repeated administration to patients with pain. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 15% |
| Spain | 1 | 8% |
| New Zealand | 1 | 8% |
| United States | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 8 | 62% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 10 | 77% |
| Scientists | 3 | 23% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 46 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 4% |
| Spain | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 43 | 93% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 7 | 15% |
| Researcher | 7 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 15% |
| Other | 3 | 7% |
| Professor | 3 | 7% |
| Other | 7 | 15% |
| Unknown | 12 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Neuroscience | 12 | 26% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 15% |
| Psychology | 3 | 7% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 4% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 6 | 13% |
| Unknown | 15 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 09 April 2019.
All research outputs
#4,284,062
of 25,394,764 outputs
Outputs from Drug Design, Development and Therapy
#267
of 2,270 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#50,537
of 277,704 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Drug Design, Development and Therapy
#13
of 157 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,394,764 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,270 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its peers.
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 277,704 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 157 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.