ArticleResearch in pharmaceutical sciences2021
Anticonvulsive evaluation and histopathological survey of thalidomide synthetic analogs on lithium-pilocarpine-induced status epilepticus in rats.
Article in Research in pharmaceutical sciences, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Polypharmacy with tiagabine, levetiracetam, and perampanel in status epilepticus: Insights from EEG, biochemical, and histopathological studies in rats.Epilepsia open · 2025Article
- Thalidomide Attenuates Epileptogenesis and Seizures by Decreasing Brain Inflammation in Lithium Pilocarpine Rat Model.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Article
- Pentylenetetrazole preconditioning attenuates severity of status epilepticus induced by lithium-pilocarpine in male rats: evaluation of opioid/NMDA receptors and nitric oxide pathway.Pharmacological reports : PR · 2022Article
- Anti-emetic effects of thalidomide: Evidence, mechanism of action, and future directions.Current research in pharmacology and drug discovery · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background and purposeStatus epilepticus is a severe neurological disorder that can be life-threatening. Thalidomide and its analogs have shown promising results to confront pentylenetetrazole-induced seizures. This study aimed to evaluate the potential effects of three synthesized thalidomide derivatives on lithium-pilocarpine-induced status epilepticus. EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH: To induce status epilepticus, rats received lithium chloride (127 mg/kg, i.p.) and pilocarpine HCl (60 mg/kg, i.p.) 20 h after lithium chloride injection. Thirty min before pilocarpine HCl administration, rats received hyoscine N-butyl bromide (1 mg/kg, i.p.) and concurrently one of the test compounds (5B, 5C, and 5D), diazepam, thalidomide, or vehicle (4% DMSO) to evaluate their anti-epileptic effects. Epileptic seizures scores were assessed through the Racine scale. Twenty-four h after injection of pilocarpine, brain samples were extracted for further histopathological evaluation. FINDINGS/
resultsResults revealed that among tested compounds (5B, 5C, and 5D), only compound 5C (1 mg/kg) exhibited excellent anti-epileptic activity comparable to diazepam (10 mg/kg). Compound 5D (100 mg/kg) only demonstrated comparable anti-epileptic activity to thalidomide (1 mg/kg). Compound 5B did not have any anti-epileptic activity even at the dose of 100 mg/kg. The histopathological survey showed that compound 5C has more neuroprotective effects than diazepam and thalidomide in the cortex of the brain. In the cornu ammonis 1 region, thalidomide had higher protective properties and in the cornu ammonis 3 and dentate gyrus areas, diazepam had higher efficacy to prevent necrosis. CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS: Compound 5C is a good candidate for further studies regarding its potency, compared to thalidomide and diazepam.
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.