Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 459

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 40 of the 40 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

An electronic pressure-meter nociception paw test for mice

Open access
Cunha, T.M., Verri Jr., W.A., Vivancos, G.G., Moreira, I.F., Reis, S., Parada, C.A., Cunha, F.Q., Ferreira, S.H.·2004·Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research

Abstract

The aim of the present investigation was to describe and validate an electronic mechanical test for quantification of the intensity of inflammatory nociception in mice. The electronic pressure-meter test consists of inducing the animal hindpaw flexion reflex by poking the plantar region with a polypropylene pipette tip adapted to a hand-held force transducer. This method was compared to the classical von Frey filaments test in which pressure intensity is automatically recorded after the nociceptive hindpaw flexion reflex. The electronic pressure-meter and the von Frey filaments were used to detect time versus treatment interactions of carrageenin-induced hypernociception. In two separate experiments, the electronic pressure-meter was more sensitive than the von Frey filaments for the detection of the increase in nociception (hypernociception) induced by small doses of carrageenin (30 microg). The electronic pressure-meter detected the antinociceptive effect of non-steroidal drugs in a dose-dependent manner. Indomethacin administered intraperitoneally (1.8-15 mg/kg) or intraplantarly (30-300 microg/paw) prevented the hypersensitive effect of carrageenin (100 microg/paw). The electronic pressure-meter also detected the hypernociceptive effect of prostaglandin E2 (PGE2; 10-100 ng) in a dose-dependent manner. The hypernociceptive effect of PGE2 (100 ng) was blocked by dipyrone (160 and 320 microg/paw) but not by intraplantar administration of indomethacin (300 microg/paw). The present results validate the use of the electronic pressure-meter as more sensitive than the von Frey filaments in mice. Furthermore, it is an objective and quantitative nociceptive test for the evaluation of the peripheral antinociceptive effect of anti-inflammatory analgesic drugs, which inhibit prostaglandin synthesis (indomethacin) or directly block the ongoing hypernociception (dipyrone).

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1590/s0100-879x2004000300018

Cites

40 of 40 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 40 references

Cited by

See all 459

Metadata

Authors
Cunha, T. M., Verri Jr., W. A., Vivancos, G. G., Moreira, I. F., Reis, S., Parada, C. A., Cunha, F. Q., & Ferreira, S. H.
Venue
Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research
Published
2004-03
Volume
37
Issue
3
Pages
401-407
ISSN
0100-879X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2171223432
Cited by
459
References
40
FWCI
4.18
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

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: An electronic pressure-meter nociception paw test for mice. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1590/s0100-879x2004000300018
The paper
Cunha, T. M., Verri Jr., W. A., Vivancos, G. G., Moreira, I. F., Reis, S., Parada, C. A., Cunha, F. Q., & Ferreira, S. H. (2004). An electronic pressure-meter nociception paw test for mice. Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research. https://doi.org/10.1590/s0100-879x2004000300018

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.