-
International Journal of... Sep 2022This paper provides an accessible review of the biological and psychological evidence to guide new and experienced researchers in the study of emotional piloerection in... (Review)
Review
This paper provides an accessible review of the biological and psychological evidence to guide new and experienced researchers in the study of emotional piloerection in humans. A limited number of studies have attempted to examine the physiological and emotional correlates of piloerection in humans. However, no review has attempted to collate this evidence to guide the field as it moves forward. We first discuss the mechanisms and function of non-emotional and emotional piloerection in humans and animals. We discuss the biological foundations of piloerection as a means to understand the similarities and differences between emotional and non-emotional piloerection. We then present a systematic qualitative review (k = 24) in which we examine the physiological correlates of emotional piloerection. The analysis revealed that indices of sympathetic activation are abundant, suggesting emotional piloerection occurs with increased (phasic) skin conductance and heart rate. Measures of parasympathetic activation are lacking and no definite conclusions can be drawn. Additionally, several studies examined self-reported emotional correlates, and these correlates are discussed in light of several possible theoretical explanations for emotional piloerection. Finally, we provide an overview of the methodological possibilities available for the study of piloerection and we highlight some pressing questions researchers may wish to answer in future studies.
Topics: Animals; Emotions; Heart Rate; Humans; Piloerection
PubMed: 35764195
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2022.06.010 -
Seizure Jan 2019To comprehensively analyze ictal piloerection (IP) in a large number of subjects.
PURPOSE
To comprehensively analyze ictal piloerection (IP) in a large number of subjects.
METHODS
We performed a systematic review on case report studies of patients diagnosed with IP (1929-2017) with additional cases included from the Department of Neurology of University of Pécs, the National Institute of Clinical Neurosciences, and Odense University Hospital. Each included case was characterized regarding patient history, IP seizure characteristics, diagnostic work-up, and therapy. Comparative analyses were also carried out based on sex and pathology.
RESULTS
Altogether, 109 cases were included. We observed a strong male predominance (p < 0.001). The mean age at onset of epilepsy was 39.5 ± 20.7 years (median: 38, IQR:24-57). The seizure onset zone was temporal (p < 0.001), and was lateralized to the ipsilateral hemisphere in unilateral localization (p = 0.001). The seizure was accompanied by cold shiver in 53%, and by other autonomic symptoms in 47% of cases. In 53% of patients, IP never progressed into complex partial or generalized tonic-clonic seizure; 16% of the patients reported occasional, and 31% regular generalization. Seizure frequency was higher among females (median:25/day, IQR:3-60) than among males (median:3/day, IQR:1-11) (p = 0.017). The two most common underlying pathologies were limbic encephalitis (23%) and astrocytoma (23%, among them 64% WHO III-IV astrocytoma).
CONCLUSION
IP was particularly associated with autoimmune encephalitis and high-grade glioma, suggesting IP's particular clinical importance in directing diagnostic work-up.
Topics: Adult; Autonomic Nervous System; Brain Neoplasms; Epilepsy, Temporal Lobe; Female; Glioma; Humans; Limbic Encephalitis; Male; Middle Aged; Piloerection
PubMed: 30497014
DOI: 10.1016/j.seizure.2018.11.009 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2013Jellyfish envenomations are common amongst temperate coastal regions and vary in severity depending on the species. Stings result in a variety of symptoms and signs,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Jellyfish envenomations are common amongst temperate coastal regions and vary in severity depending on the species. Stings result in a variety of symptoms and signs, including pain, dermatological reactions and, in some species, Irukandji syndrome (including abdominal/back/chest pain, tachycardia, hypertension, sweating, piloerection, agitation and sometimes cardiac complications). Many treatments have been suggested for the symptoms and signs of jellyfish stings. However, it is unclear which interventions are most effective.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the benefits and harms associated with the use of any intervention, in both adults and children, for the treatment of jellyfish stings, as assessed from randomised trials.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following electronic databases in October 2012 and again in October 2013: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL;The Cochrane Library, Issue 9, 2013); MEDLINE via Ovid SP (1948 to 22 October 2013); EMBASE via Ovid SP (1980 to 21 October 2013); and Web of Science (all databases; 1899 to 21 October 2013). We also searched reference lists from eligible studies and guidelines, conference proceedings and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) and contacted content experts to identify trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials that compared any intervention(s) to active and/or non-active controls for the treatment of symptoms and signs of jellyfish sting envenomation. No language, publication date or publication status restrictions were applied.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently conducted study selection and data extraction and assessed risk of bias using a standardised form. Disagreements were resolved by consensus with a third review author when necessary.
MAIN RESULTS
We included seven trials with a total of 435 participants. Three trials focused on Physalia (Bluebottle) jellyfish, one trial on Carukia jellyfish and three on Carybdea alata (Hawaiian box) jellyfish. Two ongoing trials were identified.Six of the seven trials were judged as having high risk of bias. Blinding was not feasible in four of the included trials because of the nature of the interventions. A wide range of interventions were assessed across trials, and a wide range of outcomes were measured. We reported results from the two trials for which data were available and reported the effects of interventions according to our definition of primary or secondary outcomes.Hot water immersion was superior to ice packs in achieving clinically significant (at least 50%) pain relief at 10 minutes (one trial, 96 participants, risk ratio (RR) 1.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.01 to 2.72; low-quality evidence) and 20 minutes (one trial, 88 participants, RR 2.66, 95% CI 1.71 to 4.15; low-quality evidence). No statistically significant differences between hot water immersion and ice packs were demonstrated for dermatological outcomes.Treatment with vinegar or Adolph's meat tenderizer compared with hot water made skin appear worse (one trial, 25 participants, RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.72; low-quality evidence).Adverse events due to treatment were not reported in any trial.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This review located a small number of trials that assessed a variety of different interventions applied in different ways and in different settings. Although heat appears to be an effective treatment for Physalia (Bluebottle) stings, this evidence is based on a single trial of low-quality evidence. It is still unclear what type of application, temperature, duration of treatment and type of water (salt or fresh) constitute the most effective treatment. In addition, these results may not apply to other species of jellyfish with different envenomation characteristics. Future research should further assess the most effective interventions using standardised research methodology.
Topics: Acetic Acid; Adult; Animals; Bites and Stings; Child; Cnidaria; Cryotherapy; Cubozoa; Drug Combinations; Hot Temperature; Humans; Hydrozoa; Pain Management; Papain; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sodium, Dietary
PubMed: 24318773
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009688.pub2 -
Journal of General Internal Medicine Nov 2013To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials evaluating the efficacy and safety of midodrine in orthostatic hypotension (OH). (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials evaluating the efficacy and safety of midodrine in orthostatic hypotension (OH).
METHODS
We searched major databases and related conference proceedings through June 30, 2012. Two reviewers independently selected studies and extracted data. Random-effects meta-analysis was used to pool the outcome measures across studies.
RESULTS
Seven trials were included in the efficacy analysis (enrolling 325 patients, mean age 53 years) and two additional trials were included in the safety analysis. Compared to placebo, the mean change in systolic blood pressure was 4.9 mmHg (p = 0.65) and the mean change in mean arterial pressure from supine to standing was -1.7 mmHg (p = 0.45). The change in standing systolic blood pressure before and after giving midodrine was 21.5 mmHg (p < 0.001). A significant improvement was seen in patients' and investigators' global assessment symptoms scale (a mean difference of 0.70 [95 % CI 0.30-1.09; p < 0.001] and 0.80 [95 % CI 0.76-0.85; p < 0.001], respectively). There was a significant increase in risk of piloerection, scalp pruritis, urinary hesitancy/retention, supine hypertension and scalp paresthesia after giving midodrine. The quality of evidence was limited by imprecision, heterogeneity and increased risk of bias.
CONCLUSION
There is insufficient and low quality evidence to support the use of midodrine for OH.
Topics: Blood Pressure; Clinical Trials as Topic; Humans; Hypotension, Orthostatic; Midodrine; Vasoconstrictor Agents
PubMed: 23775146
DOI: 10.1007/s11606-013-2520-3