The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The formalin test in mice: dissociation between inflammatory and non-inflammatory pain
Abstract
The formalin test in mice is a valid and reliable model of nociception and is sensitive for various classes of analgesic drugs. The noxious stimulus is an injection of dilute formalin (1% in saline) under the skin of the dorsal surface of the right hindpaw. The response is the amount of time the animals spend licking the injected paw. Two distinct periods of high licking activity can be identified, an early phase lasting the first 5 min and a late phase lasting from 20 to 30 min after the injection of formalin. In order to elucidate the involvement of inflammatory processes in the two phases, we tested different classes of drugs in the two phases independently. Morphine, codeine, nefopam, and orphenadrine, as examples of centrally acting analgesics, were antinociceptive in both phases. In contrast, the non-steroid anti-inflammatory drugs indomethacin and naproxen and the steroids dexamethasone and hydrocortisone inhibited only the late phase, while acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) and paracetamol were antinociceptive in both phases. The results demonstrate that the two phases in the formalin test may have different nociceptive mechanisms. It is suggested that the early phase is due to a direct effect on nociceptors and that prostaglandins do not play an important role during this phase. The late phase seems to be an inflammatory response with inflammatory pain that can be inhibited by anti-inflammatory drugs. ASA and paracetamol seem to have actions independent of their inhibition of prostaglandin synthesis and they also have effects on non-inflammatory pain.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
FLOWER, R. J., & VANE, J. R. (1972) · Nature · doi:10.1038/240410a0 · Cited by 779
Cited by
Le Bars, D., Gozariu, M., & Cadden, S. W. (2001) · Pharmacological Reviews · doi:10.1016/s0031-6997(24)01514-x · Cited by 1,459
Högestätt, E. D., Jönsson, B. A. G., Ermund, A., Andersson, D. A., Björk, H., Alexander, J. P., Cravatt, B. F., Basbaum, A. I., & Zygmunt, P. M. (2005) · Journal of Biological Chemistry · doi:10.1074/jbc.m501489200 · Cited by 454
Hajhashemi, V., Ghannadi, A., & Sharif, B. (2003) · Journal of Ethnopharmacology · doi:10.1016/s0378-8741(03)00234-4 · Cited by 395
Black cumin seed essential oil, as a potent analgesic and antiinflammatory drug
Hajhashemi, V., Ghannadi, A., & Jafarabadi, H. (2004) · Phytotherapy Research · doi:10.1002/ptr.1390 · Cited by 365
A Neural Circuit for the Suppression of Pain by a Competing Need State
Alhadeff, A. L., Su, Z., Hernandez, E., Klima, M. L., Phillips, S. Z., Holland, R. A., Guo, C., Hantman, A. W., De Jonghe, B. C., & Betley, J. N. (2018) · Cell · doi:10.1016/j.cell.2018.02.057 · Cited by 218
Metadata
- Authors
- Hunskaar, S., & Hole, K.
- Venue
- Pain
- Published
- 1987-07
- Volume
- 30
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 103-114
- ISSN
- 0304-3959 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2073541816
- Cited by
- 2,186
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 5.87
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The formalin test in mice: dissociation between inflammatory and non-inflammatory pain. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/0304-3959(87)90088-1
- The paper
- Hunskaar, S., & Hole, K. (1987). The formalin test in mice: dissociation between inflammatory and non-inflammatory pain. Pain. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3959(87)90088-1
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.