ArticleResearch square2026
Wound Healing Activity of
Article in Research square, 2026. 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
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Impaired wound healing is a major complication in diabetic patients. Currently available wound therapies may cause adverse effects, highlighting the need for safer, natural alternatives. This study evaluated the wound healing potential of Methods: Diabetic excision wound models were established and animals were divided into six groups: non-diabetic untreated wounds, diabetic untreated wounds, diabetic wounds treated with UCSME ointment at concentrations of 5%, 10%, and 20%, and diabetic wounds treated with betadine ointment. Wound healing was assessed through wound area reduction, epithelialization time, inflammatory and proliferative cell counts, angiogenesis, collagen deposition, and hydroxyproline content. Phytochemical composition and antioxidant activity were also analyzed. Results: UCSME ointment significantly accelerated wound closure, shortened epithelialization time, enhanced angiogenesis, re-epithelialization, collagen synthesis, and increased neutrophil, macrophage, and fibroblast counts compared to untreated diabetic controls (p < 0.05). A 5% concentration was sufficient to improve wound closure and proliferative cell responses, while 10% and 20% concentrations showed stronger effects on inflammatory response and angiogenesis. The 20% UCSME ointment produced the most pronounced improvements in angiogenesis, re-epithelialization, and hydroxyproline levels. UCSME contained high total phenolic (20.99%) and flavonoid (0.40%) contents and exhibited strong antioxidant activity (IC Conclusion: Topical UCSME effectively promotes wound healing in diabetic rats and represents a promising natural therapeutic candidate for diabetic wound management.
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.