ArticleClinical and experimental gastroenterology2020
Barrier Effect of a New Topical Agent on Damaged Esophageal Mucosa: Experimental Study on an ex vivo Swine Model.
Article in Clinical and experimental gastroenterology, 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Barrier effect and wound healing activity of the medical device REF-FTP78 in the treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Rheological Behavior of a New Mucoadhesive Oral Formulation Based on Sodium Chondroitin Sulfate, Xyloglucan and Glycerol.Journal of functional biomaterials · 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
10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeAL2106 is a new medical device based on a mixture of chondroitin sulphate in a xyloglucan and glycerol solution made to maximize its bioadhesive capability to the esophageal mucosa. The aim of the present study was twofold to evaluate the AL2106 protective effect on the esophageal mucosa when exposed to an acidic solution mimicking gastric reflux and to assess the resilience of this effect to saline washing. MATERIALS AND
methodsA porcine ex vivo model was used and the effects of the new medical device were compared to a sodium alginate suspension (SAS) already present on the market which was assumed as reference. Mucosal damage was induced in 19 porcine esophagi by perfusion with an acidic solution added with pepsin, and Evans blue dye (EBD) tissue uptake was used as an indicator of mucosal permeability. The EBD penetration, expressed as EBD µg/g of dry tissue, was assessed in specimens of untreated damaged mucosa and in specimens treated with AL2106 or SAS. The same evaluation was carried out after washing with normal saline.
resultsBoth topical agents tested significantly reduced the EBD uptake by more than 60% (AL2106 8.4±4.5, SAS 3.6±2.7 vs control 23.2±13.1, p<0.01). The saline washing did not cause any significant reduction in the protective effect of AL2106 (8.6±5.9), while it significantly reduced that of SAS (5.9±4.3, p<0.05).
conclusionThe new AL2106 medical device showed a good barrier effect against a reflux-like damaging solution and preserved this effect after the mucosal washing test, thus suggesting its possible relevance for the treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease.
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.