ArticleThe journal of international advanced otology2020
The Protective Effect of Nigella sativa Oil against Experimentally Induced Cisplatin Ototoxicity: An Animal Study.
Article in The journal of international advanced otology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Nigella Sativa and Thymoquinone for Prevention or Mitigation of Acquired Sensorineural Hearing Loss: A Systematic Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe objective of this study was to investigate the potential protective effect of Nigella sativa oil (NSO) against cis-diamminedichloroplatinum or cisplatin (CDDP)-induced ototoxicity. MATERIALS AND
methodsTwenty-four Wistar albino rats were randomly and equally divided into four groups. Groups 1 and 2 were given a total of 15 mg/kg CDDP intraperitoneally, which was divided equally into three doses on days 1, 3, and 5. Group 2 was treated via gavage feeding with 15 ml NSO that was divided into five doses on days 1, 3, 5, 7, and 9. Groups 3 and 4 received only 15 ml of NSO and 15 ml of 0.9% saline solution, respectively, which were orally administered and divided into five doses on days 1, 3, 5, 7, and 9. Baseline high-frequency (8, 12, 16, and 32 kHz) auditory brainstem response (ABR) measurements were collected in all the groups before the medical administrations and were repeated on the 14th day before sacrifice. Afterward, a histopathological evaluation of the cochlea was performed.
resultsThere was a significant difference in the histopathological changes between group 1 and the other groups (p<0.01). Changes in the spiral ganglion cells, the stria vascularis, and the external ciliated cells were significantly different between groups 1 and 2 (p=0.019, 0.039, and 0.045, respectively). The ABR results revealed significant differences in the 16 and 32 kHz measurements between groups 1 and 2 (p=0.013 and p<0.01, respectively).
conclusionAccording to the results, NSO may have a protective effect on cochlear function against the disruptive effects of CDDP in rats.
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.