4.6 Review

Animal models for central poststroke pain: a critical comprehensive review

期刊

PAIN
卷 158, 期 1, 页码 17-29

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000000722

关键词

Dejerine-Roussy; Central poststroke pain; CPSP; Thalamic syndrome; Animal models

资金

  1. FWO-Research Foundation Flanders [G0A5513N]
  2. Medtronic

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Central poststroke pain (CPSP) is a severe type of neuropathic pain that can develop after stroke and is difficult to treat. Research into its underlying mechanisms and treatment options could benefit from a valid CPSP animal model. Nine different CPSP animal models have been published, but there are relatively few reports on successful reproductions of these models and so far only little advances in the understanding or the management of CPSP have been made relying on these models. In general, the construct validity (similarity in underlying mechanisms) of these CPSP animal models is relatively high, although this cannot be evaluated into depth because of lack of understanding the mechanisms through which thalamic stroke can lead to CPSP. The face validity (symptom similarity) is relatively low, mainly because pain in these models is tested almost exclusively through evoked mechanical/thermal hypersensitivity assessed by reflexive measures and given the conflicting results with similar tests in patients with CPSP. The predictive validity (similarity in treatment efficacy) has not been evaluated in most models and incorporates difficulties that are specific to CPSP. We compare the different models regarding these types of validity and discuss the robustness, reproducibility, and problems regarding the design and reporting of the articles establishing these models. We conclude with various proposals on how to improve the validity and reproducibility of CPSP animal models. Until further improvements are achieved, prudence is called for in interpreting results obtained through these models.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据