ArticleJournal of pharmacopuncture2024
Toxicity Assessment of a No-Pain Pharmacopuncture Extract Using a Standard Battery of
Article in Journal of pharmacopuncture, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- A perspective review on factors that influence mutagenicity in medicinal plants and their health implications.Toxicological sciences : an official journal of the Society of Toxicology · 2025Review
- Toxicity Evaluation of a Non-Pain Pharmacopuncture Extract Using a Bacterial Reverse Mutation Test.Journal of pharmacopuncture · 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
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Genotoxicity is evaluated through a chromosomal aberration test using cultured mammalian cells to determine the toxicity of no-pain pharmacopuncture (NPP), which has recently been used to treat musculoskeletal pain disorders in Korean medical clinical practice. Methods: An initial test was performed to determine the dosage range of the NPP, followed by the main test. In this study, NPP doses of 10.0, 5.0, and 2.5%, and negative and positive controls were tested. An Results: Compared with the saline negative control group, NPP did not significantly increase the frequency of chromosomal abnormalities in Chinese hamster lung cells, regardless of the presence or absence of metabolic activation. Additionally, the number of cells with structural chromosomal abnormalities was significantly higher in the positive control group than that in the negative control group that received saline. Conclusion: Based on the above results, the chromosomal abnormality-producing effect of NPP was determined to be negative under these test conditions.
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.