ArticleJournal of experimental pharmacology2020
Protective Effect of
Article in Journal of experimental pharmacology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Phytochemical Analysis of Moroccan Mercurialis annua L. and Its Nephroprotective Activity: Evidence Supporting Traditional Renal Uses.Chemistry & biodiversity · 2026Article
- Protective effects and metabolomics analysis of dihydromyricetin on cyclophosphamide-induced hepatotoxicity in mice.Pharmaceutical science advances · 2025Article
- Study on Antibacterial Activities ofTheScientificWorldJournal · 2025Article
- Phenethyl isothiocyanate protects against cyclophosphamide-induced nephrotoxicity via nuclear factor E2-related factor 2 pathway in rats.Experimental biology and medicine (Maywood, N.J.) · 2023Article
- Medicinal plants utilized in the management of epilepsy in Ethiopia: ethnobotany, pharmacology and phytochemistry.Chinese medicine · 2022Review
- Potential Protective Effects of Antioxidants against Cyclophosphamide-Induced Nephrotoxicity.International journal of nephrology · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCyclophosphamide is an alkylating antineoplastic agent and its major limitation is injury to normal tissue, leading to multiple organ toxicity, including kidney, heart, liver and reproductive toxicity.
objectiveThe present study aims to assess the protective effect of the stem bark extract and solvent fractions of
methodsNephrotoxicity was induced using cyclophosphamide 200 mg/kg i.p injection on the first day of the experiment. The negative control groups were administered with cyclophosphamide alone (200 mg/kg, i.p.). The crude extracts were administered at three dose levels (100, 200, and 400 mg/kg), while aqueous and ethyl acetate fractions were given at two dose levels (100 and 200 mg/kg). Excepting the normal control, all groups were subjected to cyclophosphamide toxicity on the first day.
resultsTreatment with crude extract 100 mg/kg and ethyl acetate fraction significantly decreased kidney-to-body weight ratio (P < 0.001). In addition, treatment with
conclusionCroton macrostachyus possesses nephroprotective activities and it could be a possible source of treatment for cyclophosphamide-induced nephrotoxicity.
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.