ArticleVeterinary world2019
Dry preservation of
Article in Veterinary world, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimThe most widely adopted technique to preserve the gross specimen of the parasite is immersions and storage in liquid preservatives. The present study aimed to describe the dry method of the preservation of MATERIALS AND
methodsAcetone dehydrated parasites were incubated at -20°C for 1 month in five different plastination solutions, prepared by mixing melamine and turpentine oil with clove oil (MTCl)/chloroform (MTC)/isopropanol (MTI)/benzene (MTB)/xylene (MTX) in 1:1:1 ratio to infiltrate the polymer. Technical personnel was asked to assign weekly score for dryness, stickiness, shrinkage, glossiness, flexibility, and odor of the prepared model on a 5-point scale.
resultsOverall, the plastinated parasites were dry, non-sticky, glossy, odorless, chemical-free, harmless, to some extent flexible, with detectable morphological structure including natural form but lost their natural color, and cuticle became translucent. A varying level of shrinkage was noted in all types of plastinated model, but it was least in MTCl model. One month post-plastination, the mean evaluation score for glossiness was maximum in the parasite plastinated in MTCl solution (4.50±0.17), followed by MTC (3.72±0.32), MTX (3.56±0.38), MTB (2.83±0.37), and MTI (2.31±0.33). Likewise, for flexibility, the score was maximum in the parasite plastinated in MTCl solution (4.36±0.16), followed by MTB (3.11±0.14), MTC (2.94±0.41), MTX (2.75±0.41), and MTI (1.97±0.28). The degree of dryness, stickiness, and odor of the prepared model varies non-significantly (p>0.05) with the polymer mixtures. Maximum shrinkage percentage in terms of length and width was 4.24% and 50%, respectively, in the parasites plastinated in MTB solution. Shrinkage percentage was minimal (1.81% in length and 25% in width) in the MTCl plastinated parasites. Shrinkage percentage in terms of dimension was statistically non-significant among the different polymer solutions. Plastinated models withstand the process of microbial decomposition. There were 5 and 11 odd points in favor of plastination and formalin preservation technique, respectively.
conclusionThe prepared
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.