ArticleLasers in medical science2016
Evaluation of low-level laser therapy on skeletal muscle ischemia-reperfusion in streptozotocin-induced diabetic rats by assaying biochemical markers and histological changes.
Article in Lasers in medical science, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Photobiomodulation plus Adipose-derived Stem Cells Improve Healing of Ischemic Infected Wounds in Type 2 Diabetic Rats.Scientific reports · 2020Article
- The Protective Effects of Fasciotomy on Reperfusion Injury of Skeletal Muscle of Rabbits.BioMed research international · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The purpose of the present study was to assess the effects of low-level laser therapy (LLLT) on skeletal muscle ischemia-reperfusion (IR) injuries in streptozotocin-induced diabetic rats. Twenty male Wistar rats were randomly assigned into two experimental groups, as follows: the diabetic IR group (G1, n = 10) and the diabetic IR + LLLT group (G2, n = 10). Ischemia was induced in anesthetized rats from the right femoral artery clipping for 2 h, followed by a reperfusion for 24 h. Then, the laser irradiation (K30 handheld probe, AZOR, Technica, Russia, 650 nm, 30 mW, surface area = 1 cm(2), energy density = 1.8 J/cm(2)) was carried out by irradiating the rats over a unique point on the skin over the middle region of the right gastrocnemius muscle belly three times (every 8 h), starting after initiating the reperfusion for 3 min. At the end of the reperfusion period, rats were anaesthetized and blood samples were collected and used for the estimation of pO2, pCO2, pH, HCO3, serum creatine phosphokinase (CPK), and lactate dehydrogenase (LDH). Subsequently, the right gastrocnemius muscle samples were taken for wet/dry weight ratio assessment and histological/biochemical examination. The pO2, pCO2, HCO3, and pH levels were similar for both groups (P > 0.05). The serum LDH and CPK levels were significantly lower (P < 0.05) for G2 compared to G1. In comparison to G1, tissue malondialdehyde level in G2 was significantly decreased (P < 0.05). In G2, superoxide dismutase activity was significantly increased compared to G1 (P < 0.05). Unlike G2, a significant decrease in the activity of catalase was observed in G1 (P < 0.05). The wet/dry ratio in G1 was significantly higher than that of G2 (P < 0.05). Histological examination confirmed that the extent of muscle changes in G1 was higher than G2 (P < 0.05). Finally, according to this study, LLLT has a beneficial effect on the IR muscle injury treatment in the diabetic rats. Therefore, we suggest that further research needs to be conducted using different laser parameters and examining response over a longer period of tissue recovery.
Indexed as
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.