↓ Skip to main content

Effect of ozone on colon anastomoses in rat peritonitis model

Overview of attention for article published in Acta Cirurgica Brasileira, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
19 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Effect of ozone on colon anastomoses in rat peritonitis model
Published in
Acta Cirurgica Brasileira, February 2016
DOI 10.1590/s0102-865020160020000005
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tuğrul Çakır, Arif Aslaner, Seçkin Özgür Tekeli, Sema Avcı, Uğur Doğan, Feyza Tekeli, Hakan Soylu, Cebrail Akyüz, Süleyman Koç, İsmail Üstünel, Necat Yılmaz

Abstract

To investigate the effects of medical ozone theraphy on the colon anastomosis of peritonitis model in rats. Eighteen rats were randomly assigned into three equal groups; control, cecal punctuation and colon anastomosis and ozone theraphy. Sepsis was performed with a cecal punctuation in groups 2 and 3. The medical ozone theraphy was administered intraperitonealy for three weeks in group 3 while the other rats received saline injection. At the twenty second day serum were obtained for TNF-α and IL-1β, the colonic burst pressures were measured and colonic tissue samples were obtained for MDA and MPO levels. Histolopatological examination was evaluated with H&E stain, and Ki-67, IL-1β and the VEGF immunostaining densities were also compared. Intraperitoneal ozone administration reversed TNF-α, IL-1β, MDA and MPO levels and the colonic burst pressures. There was also a significant difference at immunostaining densities of histopathological examination. Medical ozone therapy may contribute to tissue healing by affecting the proliferation and the vascularization thus has benefits on colonic anastomosis at peritonitis in rats.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 19 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 5%
Unknown 18 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 3 16%
Other 2 11%
Researcher 2 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 11%
Student > Master 2 11%
Other 5 26%
Unknown 3 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 5 26%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 3 16%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 11%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 5%
Unspecified 1 5%
Other 2 11%
Unknown 5 26%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 March 2016.
All research outputs
#11,999,274
of 13,530,814 outputs
Outputs from Acta Cirurgica Brasileira
#104
of 145 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#222,950
of 266,450 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Acta Cirurgica Brasileira
#3
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,530,814 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 145 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 1.7. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 266,450 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.