ArticleCureus2022
Effects of Linagliptin and Pioglitazone on Fracture Healing in an Experimental Type 2 Diabetes Rat Model.
Article in Cureus, 2022. 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, 1 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
7 authors at 5 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimOur study aimed to examine the effects of Linagliptin, Pioglitazone, and their combination on fracture healing in a diabetes rat femur fracture model. MATERIAL AND
methodsType 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) induced rats were randomly divided into four groups: non-treated diabetes group (TD), Pioglitazone group (P), Linagliptin group (L), and Pioglitazone and Linagliptin group (PL). Daily oral dosage of pioglitazone (10 mg/kg/day), linagliptin (10 mg/kg/day), and their combination were administered. Femur fractures were stabilized intramedullary. At weeks 2 and 6, rats were sacrificed for evaluation radiologically, biomechanically, histopathologically, histomorphometrically, and immunohistochemically.
resultsFlexural strength of the L and PL groups were significantly higher compared to the P group. The highest healing score was in the L group and lowest in the P group, while the highest inflammation score was in the P group and lowest in the L group. A cluster of differentiation (CD) CD 34 reactivity was highest in the L group and lowest in the PL group.
conclusionLinagliptin treatment significantly increased histological healing scores, callus volume, biomechanical strength, and vascularity, however, minimized the inflammatory process, which was increased by pioglitazone. The combination of linagliptin and pioglitazone restored BMD and increased biomechanical strength. Linagliptin monotherapy is rarely indicated; hence, T2DM patients with a high risk of bone fractures can be considered for combined therapy of pioglitazone and linagliptin.
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.