ArticleThe open orthopaedics journal2016
Are We Economically Efficient Enough to Increase the Potential of
Article in The open orthopaedics journal, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Iopromide- and gadopentetic acid-derived preparates used in MR arthrography may be harmful to chondrocytes.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2017Article
- Can a Biodegradable Implanted Bilayered Drug Delivery System Loaded with BMP-2/BMP-12 Take an Effective Role in the Biological Repair Process of Bone-Tendon Injuries? A Preliminary Report.Journal of pharmaceutics · 2017Article
- Are We Using Slow-Acting Symptomatic Chondroprotective Drugs Conscious Enough?The open orthopaedics journal · 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
6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of this study was to test the necessity of using expensive and unaccesible pharmacological-chemical agents in the proliferation of bone tissue cultures and in the induction of mineralized matrix formation to increase the osteogenic effect.
methodsFor this purpose, human primary cell cultures were prepared and then divided into two groups. Whereas the cells in group I were fed with an osteoblast stimulator medium containing Dulbecco's Modified Eagle Medium (DMEM) and β-glycerophosphate, the cells in group II were fed with DMEM containing dexamethasone and 2-phospho-L-ascorbic acid trisodium salt. Both groups were evaluated in terms of viability, toxicity, and proliferation and then compared in terms of cell surface morphology through inverted light and environmental scanning electron microscopy. In addition to immunoflow cytometric analyses, the effects of alkaline phosphatase activities were evaluated using the spectrophotometric method to examine the osteoblastic activities. Costs were calculated in the currency of the European Union (Euros). The Tukey Honestly Significant Difference test was used to reach the statistical evaluation of the data after the analysis of variance.
resultsIt was reported that the level of the alkaline phosphates was higher in group I compared to group II. It was observed that the surface morphology quality, the number of living cells, and proliferation were higher in group II and that the results were deemed statistically significant.
conclusionIt was found that the 2-phospho-L-ascorbic acid trisodium salt and dexamethasone mixture was as effective as the expensive commercial kits on the osteogenic effect on human primary bone tissue.
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.