ArticlePloS one2024
Renal protective potential of pentoxifylline, chlorpromazine, and lovastatin in ischemia-reperfusion injury: An experimental study.
Article in PloS one, 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.
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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to evaluate the ability of pentoxifylline when compared to lovastatin and chlorpromazine as nephroprotective substances in cases of renal ischemia and reperfusion syndrome (IRI). A total of 36 adult male animals were randomly allocated into four groups (untreated control group, pentoxifylline group, lovastatin group, and chlorpromazine group), each consisting of nine animals. All groups were submitted to experimental ischemia and reperfusion procedures. The animals were evaluated 24, 72 and 120 hours after IRI, including physical examinations, serum urea and creatinine measurements, as well as histopathological, morphometric, and stereological analyses of the renal tissue. Results indicated that 24 hours after IRI, only chlorpromazine was effective in controlling azotemia. At the 72-hour mark, both chlorpromazine and pentoxifylline exhibited efficacy. After 120 hours, all three substances demonstrated renal protective qualities. Pentoxifylline was the most effective in preserving the structural integrity of kidney tissue, followed by chlorpromazine. In conclusion, all three treatments (pentoxifylline, chlorpromazine, and lovastatin) were effective. Pentoxifylline proved to be promising in the response against acute tubular necrosis, although chlorpromazine presented earlier renoprotective effects in terms of maintaining renal function.
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.