↓ Skip to main content

Effects of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation Block Remifentanil-Induced Hyperalgesia: A Randomized, Double-Blind Clinical Trial

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Pharmacology, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
64 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Effects of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation Block Remifentanil-Induced Hyperalgesia: A Randomized, Double-Blind Clinical Trial
Published in
Frontiers in Pharmacology, February 2018
DOI 10.3389/fphar.2018.00094
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gilberto Braulio, Savio C. Passos, Fabricio Leite, Andre Schwertner, Luciana C. Stefani, Ana C. S. Palmer, Iraci L. S. Torres, Felipe Fregni, Wolnei Caumo

Abstract

Background: Remifentanil-induced hyperalgesia (r-IH) involves an imbalance in the inhibitory and excitatory systems. As the transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) modulates the thalamocortical synapses in a top-down manner, we hypothesized that the active (a)-t-DCS would be more effective than sham(s)-tDCS to prevent r-IH. We used an experimental paradigm to induce temporal summation of pain utilizing a repetitive cold test (rCOLDT) assessed by the Numerical Pain Score (NPS 0-10) and we evaluated the function of the descending pain modulatory system (DPMS) by the change on the NPS (0-10) during the conditioned pain modulation (CPM)-task (primary outcomes). We tested whether a-tDCS would be more effective than s-tDCS to improve pain perception assessed by the heat pain threshold (HPT) and the reaction time during the ice-water pain test (IPT) (secondary outcomes).Methods:This double-blinded, factorial randomized trial included 48 healthy males, ages ranging 19-40 years. They were randomized into four equal groups: a-tDCS/saline, s-tDCS/saline, a-tDCS/remifentanil and s-tDCS/remifentanil. tDCS was applied over the primary motor cortex, during 20 min at 2 mA, which was introduced 10 min after starting remifentanil infusion at 0.06 μg⋅kg-1⋅min-1or saline.Results:An ANCOVA mixed model revealed that during the rCOLDT, there was a significant main effect on the NPS scores (F= 3.81;P= 0.01). The s-tDCS/remifentanil group presented larger pain scores during rCOLDT, [mean (SD) 5.49 (1.04)] and a-tDCS/remifentanil group had relative lower pain scores [4.15 (1.62)]; showing its blocking effect on r-IH. a-tDCS/saline and s-tDCS/saline groups showed lowest pain scores during rCOLDT, [3.11 (1.2)] and [3.15 (1.62)], respectively. The effect of sedation induced by remifentanil during the rCOLDT was not significant (F= 0.76;P= 0.38). Remifentanil groups showed positive scores in the NPS (0-10) during the CPM-task, that is, it produced a disengagement of the DPMS. Also, s-tDCS/Remifentanil compared to a-tDCS showed lower HPT and larger reaction-time during the IPT.Conclusion:These findings suggest that effects of a-tDCS prevent the summation response induced by r-IH during rCOLDT and the a-tDCS blocked the disengagement of DPMS. Thereby, tDCS could be considered as a new approach to contra-regulate paradoxical mechanisms involved in the r-IH. Clinical trials identification: NCT02432677. URL:https://clinicaltrials.gov/.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 64 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 64 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 9 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 14%
Student > Bachelor 8 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 9%
Student > Master 6 9%
Other 9 14%
Unknown 17 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 19%
Neuroscience 9 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 13%
Psychology 5 8%
Engineering 2 3%
Other 5 8%
Unknown 23 36%
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 09 March 2018.
All research outputs
#17,930,799
of 23,023,224 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Pharmacology
#7,208
of 16,332 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#240,259
of 330,824 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Pharmacology
#153
of 331 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,023,224 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 16,332 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 5.0. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% 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 330,824 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 331 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.