Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25814921›Full record

ArticleTobacco induced diseases2015

Comparison between cigarette smoke-induced emphysema and cigarette smoke extract-induced emphysema.

Zhi-Hui He, Ping Chen, Yan Chen, Sheng-Dong He, Ji-Ru Ye, Hong-Liang Zhang, Jun Cao

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Tobacco induced diseases, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 47 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
47citing papers in PubMed
4.5field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

47 citing papers in PubMed, 80 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Protective Effect of ThaiFood science & nutrition · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Zhi-Hui HeIntensive Care Unit, the Second Xiangya Hospital, Central-South University, Changsha, Hunan 410011 China.
Ping ChenDepartment of Respiratory Medicine, The Second Xiangya Hospital, Central-South University, Changsha, Hunan 410011 China.
Yan ChenDepartment of Respiratory Medicine, The Second Xiangya Hospital, Central-South University, Changsha, Hunan 410011 China ; Division of Respiratory Disease, Department of Internal Medicine, The Second Xiangya Hospital, Central-South University, Changsha, Hunan 410011 China.
Sheng-Dong HeDepartment of Respiratory Medicine, The Second Xiangya Hospital, Central-South University, Changsha, Hunan 410011 China.
Ji-Ru YeDepartment of Respiratory Medicine, The Second Xiangya Hospital, Central-South University, Changsha, Hunan 410011 China.
Hong-Liang ZhangDepartment of Respiratory Medicine, The Second Xiangya Hospital, Central-South University, Changsha, Hunan 410011 China.
Jun CaoDepartment of Respiratory Medicine, Hunan Provincial People's Hospital, Changsha, Hunan 410005 China.
Second Xiangya Hospital of Central South University · CNCentral South University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

objectiveEmphysema is the main pathological feature of COPD and also is the focus of the related research. Although several emphysema animal models have been established, exact comparison of findings is seldom. The present study aimed to compare cigarette smoke (CS) exposure-induced emphysema model and intraperitoneal injection of cigarette smoke extract (CSE)-induced emphysema model to evaluate the effectiveness of the two different modeling methods.

methodsSix-week-old male C57BL/6 J mice were used and randomly divided into two groups: CS exposure and intraperitoneal injection of CSE. Each group was subdivided into two subgroups: control and CS or CSE. Lung function, mean linear intercept (MLI), destructive index (DI), apoptotic index (AI), total and differential cells count in broncholavolar lavage fluid (BALF), SOD and IL-6 concentration in serum were measured.

resultsCompared with their respective controls, lung function was significantly decreased in CS and CSE groups (P < 0.01); MLI, DI, and AI of lung tissue were significantly higher in CS and CSE groups (P < 0.01); total number of leukocytes, the number and percentage of neutrophils (NEUs), and the number of macrophages (MAC) in BALF were significantly higher in CS and CSE groups (P < 0.01); SOD concentration in serum was significantly decreased in CS and CSE groups (P < 0.01); IL-6 concentration in serum was significantly increased in in CS and CSE groups (P < 0.01). There was no significant difference between CS group and CSE group in any of the parameters described above.

conclusionsBoth CS exposure and intraperitoneal injection of CSE could induce emphysema and the effectiveness of the two different modeling methods were equal.

Indexed as

AnimalChronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)EmphysemaModel

Identifiers

PMID25814921
PMCPMC4374374
OpenAlexW2150951917

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.