ArticleMolecular medicine reports2016
[Corrigendum] Naotaifang extract treatment results in increased ferroportin expression in the hippocampus of rats subjected to cerebral ischemia.
Article in Molecular medicine reports, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Protective Effect of Chinese Herbal Medicine on Cerebral Ischemia-Reperfusion Injury by Regulating Ferroptosis.Drug design, development and therapy · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
- Erratum for
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Mol Med Rep 11: [Related article:] 4047–4052, 2015; DOI: 10.3892/mmr.2015.3309 Following the publication of this article, an interested reader drew to our attention anomalies associated with the presentation of Figs. 1 and 4. The image selected for Fig. 1A, the data pertaining to '2 h', was inadvertently selected for Fig. 4A, the image labeled 'Sham'. Additionally, in Fig. 4, the same source image had inadvertently been used to provide the images for the 'Low dose group' and 'Model' panels (although the view presented differed in these panels). On re-examining our data, we realized that these errors had occurred during the compilation of Fig. 4, and that the images were correctly selected for Fig. 1. An amended version of Fig. 4 is presented below, featuring images which correctly show the data for the 'Low dose', 'Sham' and 'Model' groups. The immunohistochemical results suggested that, following treatment with 27 g/kg naotaifang extract, the expression of Fpn increased significantly compared with the other treatment doses (P<0.05), whereas significant changes were not observed among the other groups (P>0.05). The errors made in the selection of certain images for Fig. 4A did not affect the overall conclusions reported in the present study. We sincerely apologize for this mistake, and thank the reader of our article who drew this matter to our attention. Furthermore, we regret any inconvenience this mistake has caused.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.