ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2020
Age-associated differences in macrophage response in a vaginal wound healing rat model.
Article in International urogynecology journal, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Markers of the ageing macrophage: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in immunology · 2023Pooled it
- Aging of Pelvic Floor in Animal Models: A Sistematic Review of Literature on the Role of the Extracellular Matrix in the Development of Pelvic Floor Prolapse.Frontiers in medicine · 2022Pooled it
- Current practice in animal models for pelvic floor dysfunction.International urogynecology journal · 2023Review
- Mesenchymal stem cell transplantation improves biomechanical properties of vaginal tissue following full-thickness incision in aged rats.Stem cell reports · 2022Article
- Epithelial arginase-1 is a key mediator of age-associated delayed healing in vaginal injury.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2022Article
- Animal Models and Alternatives in Vaginal Research: a Comparative Review.Reproductive sciences (Thousand Oaks, Calif.) · 2021Review
- The impact of aging on innate and adaptive immunity in the human female genital tract.Aging cell · 2021Review
- Tilapia Piscidin 4 (TP4) Reprograms M1 Macrophages to M2 Phenotypes in Cell Models ofFrontiers in immunology · 2021Article
- A commentary on "Age-associated differences in macrophage response in a vaginal wound healing rat model".International urogynecology journal · 2020Article
- Estradiol-17β [EJournal of tissue engineeringArticle
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisSurgical treatment of pelvic organ prolapse often includes the use of patients' vaginal connective tissue. Wound healing appears to play an important part in the success of such procedures. The aim of this study was to describe the effect of age on inflammatory processes, specifically macrophage response, involved in vaginal wound healing.
methodsTwenty-five young (12 weeks old) and 25 old (12 months old) virgin female Fischer rats underwent a standardized 9-mm posterior midline vaginal incision. Tissue samples were taken for histological analysis on days 1, 3, 7, 14 and 30 post-injury. Parameters evaluated included wound area, macrophage number and expression of inflammatory markers including tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNFa), inducible nitric oxide synthase (iNOS), CCR7/CD197, arginase I and CD163/M130.
resultsMicroscopic examination of the vaginal wounds over time demonstrated a clear difference between young and old rats in spontaneous healing capacity. The average wound area in young rats 1 day after injury was significantly smaller than in old rats (16.5 ± 1.7 vs. 23.8 ± 1.5 mm
conclusionExcessive and prolonged macrophage response in older rats may contribute to poor wound healing in the vagina.
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.