Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35695011›Full record

ArticlePharmaceutical biology2022

Jing Li, Yongfeng Chen

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Pharmaceutical biology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 49% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Jing LiDepartment of Histology and Embryology, North Sichuan Medical College, Nanchong, Sichuan, China.
Yongfeng ChenDepartment of Basic Medical Sciences, Medical College of Taizhou University, Taizhou, China.
North Sichuan Medical University · CNTaizhou University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

contextThe effects of

objectiveTo determine the effects of RRPs on haematopoiesis in mice with aplastic anaemia. MATERIALS AND

methodsAplastic anaemia was induced in Kunming mice by

resultsCompared to anaemic controls, high-dose RRPs (40 mg/kg) significantly increased red blood cells (8.21 ± 0.57835 versus 6.13 ± 1.34623 × 10 DISCUSSION AND

conclusionsRRPs helped to promote haematopoietic recovery in mice with aplastic anaemia, facilitating haematopoietic tissue recovery. This study indicated some mechanisms of the haematopoietic regulatory effects of RRPs. Our findings provide a laboratory basis for clinical research on RRPs.

Indexed as

Anemia, AplasticRhodiolaAnimalsBone MarrowBone Marrow CellsCell ProliferationColony-Forming Units AssayHematopoietic Stem CellsMicePolysaccharidesStromal CellsPolysaccharidesbone marrow stromal cellshaematopoiesis regulationhaematopoietic progenitor cellsmice with aplastic anaemiaRhodiola rosea L.

Identifiers

PMID35695011
PMCPMC9196840
OpenAlexW4281776062

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.