ArticleAvicenna journal of phytomedicine
Effects of ethanolic extract of
Article in Avicenna journal of phytomedicine. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparative analysis of flower volatiles from four Jasminum species growing in Egypt using multivariate analysis.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Mechanistic Insights into the Wound Healing Activity of Plant Species in Diabetic Ulcers.Current issues in molecular biology · 2025Review
- Article
- Green Synthesis of Silver Nanoparticles Using Extract ofInternational journal of nanomedicine · 2020Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate wound healing activity of ethanolic extract of MATERIALS AND
methodsStreptozotocin-induced diabetic
resultsIWs and DWs showed significant improvement in wound breaking strength (265.8±10.4 vs 332.5±8.2; p<0.05), granulation tissue dry weight (26.1±0.6vs 40.4±0.3; p<0.01) and hydroxyproline content (19.3±0.5 vs 32.6±0.8; p<0.01) in treatment group as compared to control group. Neo-angiogenesis was also high in treatment group. Wound contraction was earlier (day 14) in treatment group compared to diabetic control (day 20). No significant improvement was seen in re-epithelization in treatment group.
conclusionEthanolic extract of
Indexed as
Identifiers
29062801PMC5641414W2615964084What 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.