Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29725562›Full record

ArticleCureus2018

Antinociceptive Effect of Ficus bengalensis Bark Extract in Experimental Models of Pain.

Kartikeya Rajdev, Seema Jain, Mahendra C H, Swapan K Bhattacharaya

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cureus, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. A review ofAmerican journal of translational research · 2024
    Review
  2. 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

4 authors.

Kartikeya RajdevInternal Medicine, Staten Island University Hospital, Northwell Health.
Seema JainDepartment of Pharmacology, University College of Medical Sciences and Gtb Hospital, New Delhi, India-110095.
Mahendra C HDepartment of Pharmacology, University College of Medical Sciences and Gtb Hospital, New Delhi, India-110095.
Swapan K BhattacharayaProfessor/department of Pharmacology, Bada Hindu Rao Hospital, New Delhi, India-110007.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The present study was carried out to study the effect of the aqueous extract of the stem bark of Ficus bengalensis (F. bengalensis) Linn on animal models of pain. The study consisted of five groups of Swiss albino mice with eight mice in each group. The first group served as the control group and received only normal saline. The second, third, and fourth groups received the aqueous extract of F. bengalensis per orally (p.o.) in doses of 100, 200, and 400 mg/kg respectively. The last group received morphine intraperitoneally. The antinociceptive effect was studied using the tail-flick and formalin-induced pain tests. In the tail-flick test, a significant increase in the time elapsed till the animal flicked its tail from the source of thermal stimuli was obtained with all three tested doses of F. bengalensis extract as compared to the control group. In the early phase of the formalin test (0-5 min), a significant decrease in the duration of licking response was observed with F. bengalensis (at doses of 200 and 400 mg/kg) and morphine-treated groups as compared to the control group. In the late phase (25-30 min) of the formalin test, the duration was significantly reduced with all three treated doses of F. bengalensis when compared with the control group. A similar result was obtained with the morphine-treated group. The results indicate that F. bengalensis extract possesses significant antinociceptive activity in the mice.

Indexed as

analgesicanimal modelsantinociceptiveficus bengalensisformalin testtail flick test

Identifiers

PMID29725562
PMCPMC5931416

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.