ArticlePloS one2019
Study of the potential adverse effects caused by the dermal application of Dillenia indica L. fruit extract standardized to betulinic acid in rodents.
Article in PloS one, 2019. 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, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Review
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to evaluate the potential adverse effects of the dermal administration of Dillenia indica Linnaeus (D. indica) fruit extract in healthy rodents; the extract was standardized to betulinic acid. In the initial phase, the acute effects were evaluated on the skin application site of a single extract dose. A skin irritation test was performed in male Wistar rats (n = 8/group) receiving the extract (50-150 mg/mL) with betulinic acid (0.5-1.5%, respectively). A photosensitivity test was performed in male BALB/c mice (n = 6/group) receiving the extract (150 mg/mL). Afterwards, other BALB/c mice (n = 20, male:female, 1:1) were used to assess the systemic alterations caused by 14 daily repeated doses (150 mg/mL) by monitoring the effects on mortality, body morphology, behavior, nutrition status, neuromotor reactions, organ morphology and weight, and blood tests. At this time, 0.5 mg/mL clobetasol was used as the positive control. The skin irritation index suggested that negligible skin irritation had occurred, even when the extract was applied to the rat skin at 150 mg/mL. However, the extract acted as a photosensitizer on mouse skin, showing a photosensitizing activity close to that of 10 mg/mL 5-methoxypsoralen. Repeated doses caused no mouse mortality, aggressiveness, piloerection, diarrhea, convulsions, neuromotor alterations or nutrition status changes. The mouse organ weights did not change, and the mice did not have alterations in their blood compositions. Clobetasol caused a reduction in the mononuclear leukocyte numbers. In general, the data suggest that the extract was safe in healthy rodents but indicate that caution should be taken with the photosensitizing activity; in addition, this activity should be further explored as it may be useful for phototherapeutic drug development.
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.