ArticleHistology and histopathology2024
Comparison of epoprostenol and
Article in Histology and histopathology, 2024. 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, 0 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
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of our study is to compare the efficacy of epoprostenol and
methodsAvascular necrosis was created on the femoral heads of 45 New Zealand type rabbits by surgical vascular deprivation method. The rabbits were divided into 3 groups. Group 1 was designed as a control group, in group 2 Ilomedin (epoprostenol analogue) was administrated to subjects and in group 3, Helixor (
resultsSubchondral necrosis was seen in more animals in the control group (p=0.03). Osteoblastic and osteoclastic activity were more prominent in the Ilomedin group (p=0.25 and 0.07, respectively). It was seen that the cartilages of the subjects in the Helixor and Ilomedin groups were less damaged. In the Ilomedin group, more animals were seen in the chronic phase of the repair process than in the other groups (p=0.07). Bone marrow cellularity was higher in treatment groups (22% and 20,6% for Ilomedin and Helixor, respectively, p=0,04). Trabecular volume was found to be increased in damaged femoral heads in the treatment groups, the highest increased observed in the Helixor group (p=0.01).
conclusion
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.