1993
DOI: 10.1097/00003246-199302000-00018
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Use of polyethylene glycol-bound superoxide dismutase, polyethylene glycol-bound catalase, and nimodipine to prevent hypoxic ischemic injury to the brain of newborn pigs

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

0
9
0

Year Published

1993
1993
2001
2001

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 16 publications
(9 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
9
0
Order By: Relevance
“…(n=ll), 10 [9,10]; hippocampus (n = ll), 10 [9.5, 10]; sum (n=ll), 29 [27.5, 29], as previously reported. …”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 57%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…(n=ll), 10 [9,10]; hippocampus (n = ll), 10 [9.5, 10]; sum (n=ll), 29 [27.5, 29], as previously reported. …”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 57%
“…There were no significant differences between the groups. Pathological examination results on shamoperated piglets not subjected to hypoxic ischemic injury were: cortex (n = ll), 9 [9,9]; basal ganglion Values are given as median (25th percentile, 75th percentile). n indicates number of piglets.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…All this strongly suggests that glucose caused the change in outcomes seen in our previous experiments associated with differences in serum glucose level. [8][9][10][11] How are the results of this experiment clinically applicable? Does …”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The 30-min arterial pH was about 0.1 unit higher in the current experiment than in our previous stud ies due to a somewhat lower arterial pCCL and arterial blood lactate. In previous experi ments, there was only a very weak correlation between these values and pathological out come, so no significant change in outcome was expected [44], Although the rectal tem perature of the two current groups at 30 min was statistically higher than one of the pre vious groups, the magnitude of the difference was so small as to be unlikely to have affected our results in a significant way.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 50%