Pain burden, sensory profile and inflammatory cytokines of dogs with naturally-occurring neuropathic pain treated with gabapentin alone or with meloxicam
PLoS ONE, ISSN: 1932-6203, Vol: 15, Issue: 11 November, Page: e0237121
2020
- 13Citations
- 72Captures
- 1Mentions
Metric Options: Counts1 Year3 YearSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations13
- Citation Indexes12
- 12
- Policy Citations1
- Policy Citation1
- Captures72
- Readers72
- 72
- Mentions1
- Blog Mentions1
- Blog1
Most Recent Blog
Gabapentin: Is it useful for pain control in dogs and cats?
Veterinary medicine suffers from a chronic lack of scientific evidence to identify safe and effective treatments. We are authorized to used medicines approved for human or animal use on an off-label basis in other species or conditions because the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recognizes that there are so few properly tested and approved medications for our patients. Without this off-label au
Article Description
Canine neuropathic pain (NeuP) has been poorly investigated. This study aimed to evaluate the pain burden, sensory profile and inflammatory cytokines in dogs with naturally-occurring NeuP. Twenty-nine client-owned dogs with NeuP were included in a prospective, partially masked, randomized crossover clinical trial, and treated with gabapentin/placebo/gabapentin-meloxicam or gabapentin-meloxicam/placebo/gabapentin (each treatment block of 7 days; total 21 days). Pain scores, mechanical (MNT) and electrical (ENT) nociceptive thresholds and descending noxious inhibitory controls (DNIC) were assessed at baseline, days 7, 14, and 21. DNIC was evaluated using ΔMNT (after-before conditioning stimulus). Positive or negative ΔMNT corresponded to inhibitory or facilitatory pain profiles, respectively. Pain scores were recorded using the Client Specific Outcome Measures (CSOM), Canine Brief Pain Inventory (CBPI), and short-form Glasgow Composite Measure Pain Scale (CMPS-SF). Data from baseline were compared to those of sixteen healthy controls. ΔMNT, but not MNT and ENT, was significantly larger in controls (2.3 ± 0.9 N) than in NeuP (-0.2 ± 0.7 N). The percentage of dogs with facilitatory sensory profile was similar at baseline and after placebo (61.5–63%), and between controls and after gabapentin (33.3–34.6%). The CBPI scores were significantly different between gabapentin (CBPI and CBPI ) and/or gabapentin-meloxicam (CBPI and ) when compared with baseline, but not placebo. The CBPI scores were not significantly different between placebo and baseline. The concentration of cytokines was not different between groups or treatments. Dogs with NeuP have deficient inhibitory pain mechanisms. Pain burden was reduced after gabapentin and/or gabapentin-meloxicam when compared with baseline using CBPI and CMPS-SF scores. However, these scores were not superior than placebo, nor placebo was superior to baseline evaluations. A caregiver placebo effect may have biased the results.
Bibliographic Details
10.1371/journal.pone.0237121; 10.1371/journal.pone.0237121.t002; 10.1371/journal.pone.0237121.t007; 10.1371/journal.pone.0237121.t003; 10.1371/journal.pone.0237121.t001; 10.1371/journal.pone.0237121.g001; 10.1371/journal.pone.0237121.g003; 10.1371/journal.pone.0237121.t006; 10.1371/journal.pone.0237121.t005; 10.1371/journal.pone.0237121.g002; 10.1371/journal.pone.0237121.t004
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85097035242&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0237121; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33253197; https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0237121.t002; http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0237121.t002; https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0237121.t007; http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0237121.t007; https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0237121.t003; http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0237121.t003; https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0237121.t001; http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0237121.t001; https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0237121.g001; http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0237121.g001; https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0237121.g003; http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0237121.g003; https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0237121.t006; http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0237121.t006; https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0237121.t005; http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0237121.t005; https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0237121.g002; http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0237121.g002; https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0237121.t004; http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0237121.t004; https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0237121; https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0237121.t004; https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/figure?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0237121.t004; https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0237121.t003; https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/figure?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0237121.t003; https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0237121; https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0237121; https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0237121.t007; https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/figure?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0237121.t007; https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0237121.t002; https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/figure?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0237121.t002; https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0237121.t005; https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/figure?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0237121.t005; https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0237121.t006; https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/figure?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0237121.t006; https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0237121.g002; https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/figure?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0237121.g002; https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0237121.g001; https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/figure?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0237121.g001; https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0237121.t001; https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/figure?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0237121.t001; https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0237121.g003; https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/figure?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0237121.g003; https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0237121&type=printable
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know