ArticleBulletin of emergency and trauma2020
Evaluation of Beneficial Influence of Local Application of
Article in Bulletin of emergency and trauma, 2020. 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Mechanistic Insights into the Wound Healing Activity of Plant Species in Diabetic Ulcers.Current issues in molecular biology · 2025Review
- Formulation and Evaluation ofPharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the wound healing activity of
methodsFifty male diabetic rats were randomized into two sets of 25 animals each. Each group was sub divided into five groups of five animals, each for excisional and incisional wound models, respectively. Induction of diabetes was achieved using 60 mg/kg streptozotocin. In group I, 0.1 mL sterile saline 0.9% solution was added to the wounds with no infection. In group II, the wounds were infected with Methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and only treated with 0.1 mL the sterile saline 0.9% solution. In group III, infected wounds were treated with application of base formulation ointment. In group IV, animals with infected wounds were treated with 0.1 mL topical application of 1 mg/mL methicillin and base formulation ointment. In group V, animals with infected wounds were treated with topical application of 0.1 mL solution of methicillin (1 mg/mL) and with 1g of powder extract of the plant material in ointment. The healing of the wound was assessed based on planimetry, hydroxyproline estimation, microbiological, biomechanical and biochemical studies.
resultsMicrobiological examination, planimetric, histological and quantitative morphometric studies and determination of hydroxyproline levels showed that there was significant difference between animals in group V compared to other groups (
conclusionIt was possible to conclude that the ointment of the extract of
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.