ArticleAvicenna journal of phytomedicine
Investigating the effect of
Article in Avicenna journal of phytomedicine. 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.
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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Nanoparticles include primary particles with at least one of their dimensions being less than 100 nm. The goal of this research was to determine the possible protective role of Materials and Methods: 30 adult mice (10 males and 20 females) were used. After mating, the pregnant female mice were randomly divided into 4 study groups (n=5 mice in each group). From the 13th day of gestation until delivery, the mice were given TNP and NS. After delivery, 10 newborn male mice were selected from each group and kept under standard conditions until puberty according to the previous grouping (4 groups). The epididymis of each mouse was removed and the sperm was collected for the evaluation of Results: No significant difference was observed between the NS group and the control group (p>0.05). In the TNP, a degree of epithelial lysis and a significant decrease in sperm motility was observed (p<0.05) compared with the control group. In the TNP and NS group, NS had an ameliorating effect on TNP-induced testicular germ cell damage (p<0.05). Conclusion: In the present study, it was found that NS had no destructive effect on the germinal epithelium. However, NS had an ameliorating effect on TNP-induced testicular germ cell damage in mice.
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.