ReviewToxics2026
Exploring Sulpiride as an Alternative to Testosterone Propionate for Inducing Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia in Rodent Models.
Review in Toxics, 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
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) is a significant health issue among ageing men, with ongoing research focused on elucidating its underlying mechanisms and improving experimental models. Testosterone Propionate (TP) is the first line of choice for the induction of BPH in experimental rodent models. However, TP's controlled status as a Schedule III drug in the United States and a Class C drug in the UK presents challenges in obtaining TP for experimental use, giving preference to the sulpiride model since it is easily obtained as an alternative for the induction and study of BPH. A comprehensive literature search was conducted across multiple electronic databases, including PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science. The primary PubMed search strategy included combinations of Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) and free-text terms: ("Benign prostatic hyperplasia induction" OR "and rodent models'') AND ("Testosterone Propionate model") AND ("sulpiride model"). Studies were included if they induced BPH (using testosterone or sulpiride models). Titles and abstracts were screened for relevance; eligible articles underwent full-text review, with data extracted thematically. No formal risk-of-bias scoring was used due to the narrative approach; instead, studies were appraised by design, rigor, plausibility, and evidence. This study reviewed published and publicly available data, so no ethical approval was required. Although both TP and sulpiride induce BPH via various mechanisms, this review provides a comparative analysis of these two commonly utilised models for studying BPH. In the TP approach, castrated rodents receive daily subcutaneous injections for 4 weeks, resulting in dihydrotestosterone (DHT)-mediated epithelial hyperplasia predominantly affecting the ventral prostate lobes. Conversely, the sulpiride model is non-invasive, employs intact animals treated with sulpiride, and induces hyperprolactinemia-mediated BPH via interactions with androgen and oestrogen receptor pathways that stimulate prostatic stromal and epithelial proliferation, particularly in the lateral and dorsal lobes, representing an alternative method. We also highlight the strengths and limitations of TP and sulpiride in replicating clinical symptoms and examine the toxicological effects of sulpiride on the kidney, testis, liver, and brain. We recommend the sulpiride model for the induction and studying of BPH, as it is readily accessible and closely mimics the pathogenesis of BPH in humans, unlike the TP model, which requires castration.
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.