ArticleJournal of pharmacopuncture2022
Evaluation of Genotoxicity of SU-Eohyeol Pharmacopuncture Using an In Vitro Chromosome Aberration Test in Chinese Hamster Lung Cell.
Article in Journal of pharmacopuncture, 2022. 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.
- Chemical Analysis of SU-Eohyeol Pharmacopuncture and ItsInternational journal of medical sciences · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: This study was conducted to evaluate the safety of SU-Eohyeol pharmacopuncture (SUEP) by assessing its potential to cause chromosomal abnormalities in Chinese hamster lung cells (CHL/IC). Methods: A dose-curve was conducted to determine the highest dose of SUEP. Doses of 10, 5, 2.5, 1.25, 0.625, and 0.313% were used, and no cytotoxicity or SUEP precipitation was observed. SUEP doses of 10, 5, and 2.5%, with positive and negative controls, were used in a chromosome aberration test. Results: In this study, the frequency of abnormal chromosomal cells in the SUEP group did not show a statistically significant difference from that of the negative control group in short-term treatments with and without metabolic activation and the continuous treatment without metabolic activation. Compared with the negative control group, the positive control group had a significantly higher frequency of cells with structural chromosomal abnormalities. This test's results satisfied all conditions for determining the results. Conclusion: SUEP did not induce chromosomal aberrations under the conditions of this study. Other toxicity evaluations, safety studies in humans, and various clinical trials are required to evaluate the safety and efficacy of SUEP.
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.