The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The formalin test: an evaluation of the method
Abstract
The formalin test for nociception, which is predominantly used with rats and mice, involves moderate, continuous pain generated by injured tissue. In this way it differs from most traditional tests of nociception which rely upon brief stimuli of threshold intensity. In this article we describe the main features of the formalin test, including the characteristics of the stimulus and how changes in nociceptive behaviour may be measured and interpreted. The response to formalin shows an early and a late phase. The early phase seems to be caused predominantly by C-fibre activation due to the peripheral stimulus, while the late phase appears to be dependent on the combination of an inflammatory reaction in the peripheral tissue and functional changes in the dorsal horn of the spinal cord. These functional changes seem to be initiated by the C-fibre barrage during the early phase. In mice, the behavioural response in the late phase depends on the ambient temperature. We argue that the peripheral tissue temperature as well as other factors influencing the peripheral inflammation may affect the response, possibly confounding the results obtained with the test. Furthermore, we discuss the methods of recording the response and the value of observing more than one aspect of behaviour. Scoring of several behavioural variables provides a means of assessing motor or sensorimotor function as possible causes for changes in behaviour. In conclusion, the formalin test is a valuable addition to the battery of methods available to study nociception.
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
Antinociceptive effect of paracetamol in rats is partly dependent on spinal serotonergic systems
Tjølsen, A., Lund, A., & Hole, K. (1991) · European Journal of Pharmacology · doi:10.1016/0014-2999(91)90036-p · Cited by 163
Self-citationAnalgesia produced by injection of lidocaine into the anterior cingulum bundle of the rat
Vaccarino, A. L., & Melzack, R. (1989) · Pain · doi:10.1016/0304-3959(89)90008-0 · Cited by 104
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
Animal models of pain: progress and challenges
Mogil, J. S. (2009) · Nature Reviews Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nrn2606 · Cited by 1,120
Heritability of nociception I: Responses of 11 inbred mouse strains on 12 measures of nociception
Mogil, J. S., Wilson, S. G., Bon, K., Eun Lee, S., Chung, K., Raber, P., Pieper, J. O., Hain, H. S., Belknap, J. K., Hubert, L., et al. (1999) · Pain · doi:10.1016/s0304-3959(98)00197-3 · Cited by 656
The Endocannabinoid System and Pain
Guindon, J., & Hohmann, A. (2009) · CNS & Neurological Disorders - Drug Targets · doi:10.2174/187152709789824660 · Cited by 476
Guindon, J., & Hohmann, A. G. (2008) · British Journal of Pharmacology · doi:10.1038/sj.bjp.0707531 · Cited by 423
Metadata
- Authors
- Tjølsen, A., Berge, O.-G., Hunskaar, S., Rosland, J. H., & Hole, K.
- Venue
- Pain
- Published
- 1992-10
- Volume
- 51
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 5-17
- ISSN
- 0304-3959 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2009345240
- Cited by
- 2,428
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 9.34
- 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: an evaluation of the method. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/0304-3959(92)90003-t
- The paper
- Tjølsen, A., Berge, O.-G., Hunskaar, S., Rosland, J. H., & Hole, K. (1992). The formalin test: an evaluation of the method. Pain. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3959(92)90003-t
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.