ArticleIranian journal of basic medical sciences2018
Evaluation of antibiotic activity of methicillin in healing of full-thickness infected wounds with sensitized methicillin resistant
Article in Iranian journal of basic medical sciences, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Elucidation of Phytochemical Content ofAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Protein-lipid complexes: molecular structure, current scenarios and mechanisms of cytotoxicity.RSC advances · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe novel healing choices for handling of infections due to multidrug resistant MATERIALS AND
methodsFifty male rats were randomized into five groups of ten animals each. In CONTROL group, 0.1 ml sterile saline 0.9% solution was added to the wounds with no infection. In MRSA group, the wounds were infected with MRSA and only treated with 0.1 ml the sterile saline (0.9%) solution. In MRSA/HAMLET group, infected wounds were cured with HAMLET (100 µg). In group MRSA/ Met, animals with infected wounds were cured with 0.1 ml local use of 1 mg/ml methicillin. In MRSA/Met/HAMLET group, animals with infected wounds were cured with local use of 0.1 ml solution of methicillin (1 mg/ml) and HAMLET (100 µg). All test formulations were used for ten consecutive days, twice a day, beginning from first treatment.
resultsMicrobiological examination, planimetric, histological and quantitative morphometric studies, immunohistochemical staining for angiogenesis, determination of hydroxyproline levels and RT-PCR for Caspase 3, Bcl-2 and p53 showed that there was significant difference between animals in MRSA/Met/ HAMLET group compared to other groups (
conclusionHAMLET could make methicillin beneficial for handling of MRSA infected wounds and had the prospective effect to consider this harmless agent for local application.
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.