Pain can significantly decrease the quality of life of patients with advanced cancer. Current treatment strategies often provide inadequate analgesia and unacceptable side effects. Animal models of bone cancer pain are used in the development of novel pharmacological approaches. Here we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of publications describing in vivo modelling of bone cancer pain in which behavioural, general health, macroscopic, histological, biochemical, or electrophysiological outcomes were reported and compared to appropriate controls. In all, 150 publications met our inclusion criteria, describing 38 different models of bone cancer pain. Reported methodological quality was low; only 31% of publications reported blinded assessment of outcome, and 11% reported random allocation to group. No publication reported a sample size calculation. Studies that reported measures to reduce bias reported smaller differences in behavioural outcomes between tumour-bearing and control animals, and studies that presented a statement regarding a conflict of interest reported larger differences in behavioural outcomes. Larger differences in behavioural outcomes were reported in female animals, when cancer cells were injected into either the tibia or femur, and when MatLyLu prostate or Lewis Lung cancer cells were used. Mechanical-evoked pain behaviours were most commonly reported; however, the largest difference was observed in spontaneous pain behaviours. In the spinal cord astrocyte activation and increased levels of Substance P receptor internalisation, c-Fos, dynorphin, tumor necrosis factor-α and interleukin-1β have been reported in bone cancer pain models, suggesting several potential therapeutic targets. However, the translational impact of animal models on clinical pain research could be enhanced by improving methodological quality.
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science
8
7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
7
6%
Other
14
12%
Unknown
28
24%
Attention Score in Context
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 03 February 2014.
All research outputs
#12,301,216
of 34,410,798 outputs
Outputs from Pain (03043959)
#4,842
of 7,968 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#93,792
of 242,052 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Pain (03043959)
#48
of 96 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,410,798 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 64th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,968 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.5. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% 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 242,052 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 96 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
