ArticleBMC research notes2021
Intrabronchial application of extracellular histones shows no proinflammatory effects in swine in a translational pilot study.
Article in BMC research notes, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveExtracellular histones have been identified as one molecular factor that can cause and sustain alveolar damage and were linked to high mortality rates in critically ill patients. In this pilot study, we wanted to validate the proinflammatory in vivo effects of local histone application in a prospective translational porcine model. This was combined with the evaluation of an experimental acute lung injury model using intrabronchial lipopolysaccharides, which has been published previously.
resultsThe targeted application of histones was successful in all animals. Animals showed decreased oxygenation after instillation, but no differences could be detected between the sham and histone treatments. The histologic analyses and inflammatory responses indicated that there were no differences in tissue damage between the groups.
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.