Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32050614›Full record

ReviewBiomolecules2020

Systematic Analysis of Monoterpenes: Advances and Challenges in the Treatment of Peptic Ulcer Diseases.

Larissa Lucena Périco, Maycon Tavares Emílio-Silva, Rie Ohara, Vinícius Peixoto Rodrigues, Gabriela Bueno, José Maria Barbosa-Filho, Lúcia Regina Machado da Rocha, Leônia Maria Batista, Clélia Akiko Hiruma-Lima

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Biomolecules, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed
6.5field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

29 citing papers in PubMed, 64 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Use ofPeerJ · 2024
    Article
  17. Review
  18. Heliyon · 2023
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Larissa Lucena PéricoDepartment of Physiology, São Paulo State University (Unesp), Institute of Biosciences, Botucatu, São Paulo 18618-970, Brazil.
Maycon Tavares Emílio-SilvaDepartment of Physiology, São Paulo State University (Unesp), Institute of Biosciences, Botucatu, São Paulo 18618-970, Brazil.
Rie OharaDepartment of Physiology, São Paulo State University (Unesp), Institute of Biosciences, Botucatu, São Paulo 18618-970, Brazil.
Vinícius Peixoto RodriguesDepartment of Physiology, São Paulo State University (Unesp), Institute of Biosciences, Botucatu, São Paulo 18618-970, Brazil.
Gabriela BuenoDepartment of Physiology, São Paulo State University (Unesp), Institute of Biosciences, Botucatu, São Paulo 18618-970, Brazil.
José Maria Barbosa-FilhoDepartment of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Health Sciences Center, Federal University of Paraíba, João Pessoa, Paraíba 58051-900, Brazil.
Lúcia Regina Machado da RochaDepartment of Physiology, São Paulo State University (Unesp), Institute of Biosciences, Botucatu, São Paulo 18618-970, Brazil.
Leônia Maria BatistaDepartment of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Health Sciences Center, Federal University of Paraíba, João Pessoa, Paraíba 58051-900, Brazil.
Clélia Akiko Hiruma-LimaDepartment of Physiology, São Paulo State University (Unesp), Institute of Biosciences, Botucatu, São Paulo 18618-970, Brazil.
Universidade Estadual Paulista (Unesp) · BRUniversidade Federal da Paraíba · BR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Peptic ulcer disease (PUD) is a multifactorial and complex disease caused by an imbalance of protective and aggressive factors (endogenous and exogenous). Despite advances in recent years, it is still responsible for substantial mortality and triggering clinical problems. Over the last decades, the understanding of PUD has changed a lot with the discovery of Helicobacter pylori infection. However, this disease continues to be a challenge due to side-effects, incidence of relapse from use of various anti-ulcer medicines, and the rapid appearance of antimicrobial resistance with current H. pylori therapies. Consequently, there is the need to identify more effective and safe anti-ulcer agents. The search for new therapies with natural products is a viable alternative and has been encouraged. The literature reports the importance of monoterpenes based on the extensive pharmacological action of this class, including wound healing and anti-ulcerogenic agents. In the present study, 20 monoterpenes with anti-ulcerogenic properties were evaluated by assessing recent in vitro and in vivo studies. Here, we review the anti-ulcer effects of monoterpenes against ulcerogenic factors such as ethanol, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), and Helicobacter pylori, highlighting challenges in the field.

Indexed as

Helicobacter InfectionsHelicobacter pyloriHumansMonoterpenesPeptic UlcerRisk FactorsMonoterpenesanti-ulcer agentHelicobacter pylorimonoterpenesPeptic ulcer disease

Identifiers

PMID32050614
PMCPMC7072639
OpenAlexW3005072746

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.