ArticleAvicenna journal of phytomedicine
Antinociceptive effect of methanolic extract and alkaloid fractions 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 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, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- A comparative study of alkaloid and phenolic compounds in different organs and tissues of Berberis integerrima.PloS one · 2025Article
- Antinociceptive and anti-inflammatory activity of extracts and α-pyrones isolated from Cantinoa stricta.Inflammopharmacology · 2024Article
- Phytochemical Analysis, Antioxidant and Analgesic Activities ofMolecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveMATERIALS AND
methodsMethanolic total extract and alkaloid fractions of the plant namely, fractions A, B, C and D were prepared according to standard methods. Male Swiss mice (20-25 g) were used (n=6 in each group). Acetic acid-induced writhing, formalin and hot-plate tests were used to assess the antinociceptive activity. In hot plate and formalin tests, morphine (10 mg/kg, i.p.) and in acetic acid test, indomethacin (10 mg/kg, i.p.) were used as reference drugs.
resultsThe total extract and fractions A, B and D significantly reduced abdominal twitches in acetic acid test and licking behavior of both acute and chronic phases of formalin test. In hot-plate test, morphine as the standard drug demonstrated significant antinociception while the plant extract and fractions were ineffective. The dose of 5 mg/kg of fraction C showed slight analgesia only in acetic acid test and a dose of 10 mg/kg caused severe toxicity and even death in some animals.
conclusion
Indexed as
Identifiers
29881708PMC5987437W2780000799What 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.