↓ Skip to main content

Medical ozone treatment ameliorates the acute distal colitis in rat.

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

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
22 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
Medical ozone treatment ameliorates the acute distal colitis in rat.
Published in
Acta Cirurgica Brasileira, April 2016
DOI 10.1590/s0102-865020160040000006
Pubmed ID
Authors

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

Abstract

To investigate the effect of medical ozone treatment on the experimental acute distal colitis in rats. Eighteen rats were randomly distributed into three equal groups; control, acute distal colitis (ADC) without and with medical ozone treatment. Rats in the control group were taken saline. ADC was performed by rectal way with 4% acetic acid in groups 2 and 3, and the group 3 was treated with medical ozone for three weeks both rectally and intraperitoneally. At the twenty second day the distal colons samples were obtained for malondialdehyde and myeloperoxidase, blood samples were obtained to measure the levels of TNF-α and IL-1β levels. Histolopatological examination was evaluated with Ki-67, IL-1β and VEGF immunostaining densities. There was significant increase in tissue MDA, MPO activity, TNF-α and IL-1β after ozone administration. There was also a significant difference at immunostaining densities of histopathological examination. Medical ozone treatment ameliorated the experimental acute distal colitis induced by acetic acid in rats. Its possible effect is by means of decreasing inflammation, edema, and affecting the proliferation and the vascularization.

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 22 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 22 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 3 14%
Student > Bachelor 3 14%
Researcher 3 14%
Professor 3 14%
Student > Master 2 9%
Other 1 5%
Unknown 7 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 36%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 2 9%
Computer Science 1 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 5%
Other 2 9%
Unknown 7 32%

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 12 May 2016.
All research outputs
#6,653,304
of 7,690,302 outputs
Outputs from Acta Cirurgica Brasileira
#46
of 91 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#224,065
of 268,158 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Acta Cirurgica Brasileira
#3
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 7,690,302 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 91 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 1.0. 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 268,158 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 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.