ArticleFrontiers in chemistry2024
Article in Frontiers in chemistry, 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.
- Acute and Subchronic Exposure to Hemp (Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- HarnessingPharmaceutics · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: This study investigates the potential effects of cannabis seed oil (CSO) on the wound healing process. The aim was to assess the efficacy of CSO in treating skin wounds using an animal model and to explore its anti-inflammatory properties through in silico analysis. Methods: Eighteen male albino Wistar rats, weighing between 200 and 250 g, were divided into three groups: an untreated negative control group, a group treated with the reference drug silver sulfadiazine (SSD) (0.01 g/mL), and a group treated topically with CSO (0.962 g/mL). The initial wound diameter for all groups was 1 cm. In silico studies were conducted using Maestro 11.5 to evaluate the anti-inflammatory effects of phytoconstituents against cyclooxygenase-1 (COX-1) and cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2). Results: CSO and SSD treatments led to a significant reduction (p <0.05) in the size of burned skin wounds by day 5, with contraction rates of 53.95% and 45.94%, respectively, compared to the untreated negative control group. By day 15, wounds treated with CSO and SSD had nearly healed, showing contraction rates of 98.8% and 98.15%, respectively. By day 20, the wounds treated with CSO had fully healed (100%), while those treated with SSD had almost completely healed, with a contraction rate of 98.97%. Histological examination revealed granulated tissue, neo-blood vessels, fibroblasts, and collagen fibers in wounds treated with CSO. In silico studies identified arachidic acid, γ-linolenic acid, and linolenic acid as potent inhibitors of COX-1 and COX-2. Serum biochemical parameters indicated no significant changes (p > 0.05) in liver and kidney function in rats treated with CSO, whereas a significant increase (p < 0.01) in ALAT level was observed in rats treated with SSD. Discussion: The findings demonstrate that CSO has a promising effect on wound healing. The CSO treatment resulted in significant wound contraction and histological improvements, with no adverse effects on liver and kidney function.However, the study's limitations, including the small sample size and the need for detailed elucidation of CSO's mechanism of action, suggest that further research is necessary. Future studies should focus on exploring the molecular pathways and signaling processes involved in CSO's pharmacological effects.
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.