ArticleDrug design, development and therapy2018
Synthesis and evaluation of
Article in Drug design, development and therapy, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Synthesis and preclinical evaluation of anMolecular diversity · 2026Article
- A comprehensive review ofMedicinal chemistry research : an international journal for rapid communications on design and mechanisms of action of biologically active agents · 2026Review
- Fluorine-18 Labelled Radioligands for PET Imaging of Cyclooxygenase-2.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Cyclooxygenases as Potential PET Imaging Biomarkers to Explore Neuroinflammation in Dementia.Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine · 2022Review
- Antiinflammation Derived Suzuki-Coupled Fenbufens as COX-2 Inhibitors: Minilibrary Construction and Bioassay.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Multimodal molecular imaging evaluation for early diagnosis and prognosis of cholangiocarcinoma.Insights into imaging · 2022Review
- DeuterationRSC advances · 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
9 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAn
methodsThe in vivo uptake of celecoxib was monitored with
resultsThe IC
conclusionThe inferior in vivo blocking results of 1.48±0.20 (T/N) and 1.18±0.22 (%ID/g) suggests that the nonspecificity is associated with the complex role of peroxidase or the binding to carbonic anhydrase.
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.