Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 346

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 57 of the 57 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Antinociceptive and Antioxidant Activities of Phytol In Vivo and In Vitro Models

Open access
Santos, Camila Carolina de Menezes Patrício, Salvadori, Mirian Stiebbe, Mota, Vanine Gomes, Costa, Luciana Muratori, de Almeida, Antonia Amanda Cardoso, de Oliveira, Guilherme Antônio Lopes, Costa, Jéssica Pereira, de Sousa, Damião Pergentino, de Freitas, Rivelilson Mendes, de Almeida, Reinaldo Nóbrega·2013·Neuroscience Journal

Abstract

The objective of the present study was to evaluate the antinociceptive effects of phytol using chemical and thermal models of nociception in mice and to assess its antioxidant effects in vitro. Phytol was administered intraperitoneally (i.p.) to mice at doses of 25, 50, 100, and 200 mg/kg. In the acetic acid-induced writhing test, phytol significantly reduced the number of contortions compared to the control group (P<0.001). In the formalin test, phytol reduced significantly the amount of time spent in paw licking in both phases (the neurogenic and inflammatory phases), this effect being more pronounced in the second phase (P<0.001). Phytol also provoked a significant increase in latency in the hot plate test. These antinociceptive effects did not impaire the motor performance, as shown in the rotarod test. Phytol demonstrated a strong antioxidant effect in vitro in its capacity to remove hydroxyl radicals and nitric oxide as well as to prevent the formation of thiobarbituric acid reactive substances (TBARS). Taken as a whole, these results show the pronounced antinociceptive effects of phytol in the nociception models used, both through its central and peripheral actions, but also its antioxidant properties demonstrated in the in vitro methods used.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1155/2013/949452

Cites

57 of 57 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 57 references

Cited by

See all 346

Metadata

Authors
Santos, C. C. D. M. P., Salvadori, M. S., Mota, V. G., Costa, L. M., de Almeida, A. A. C., de Oliveira, G. A. L., Costa, J. P., de Sousa, D. P., de Freitas, R. M., & de Almeida, R. N.
Venue
Neuroscience Journal
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2013-06-11
Volume
2013
Pages
1-9
ISSN
  • 2314-4262 (ISSN-L)
  • 2314-4270
OpenAlex
W2159017944
Cited by
346
References
57
FWCI
8.36
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Antinociceptive and Antioxidant Activities of Phytol In Vivo and In Vitro Models. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1155/2013/949452
The paper
Santos, C. C. D. M. P., Salvadori, M. S., Mota, V. G., Costa, L. M., de Almeida, A. A. C., de Oliveira, G. A. L., Costa, J. P., de Sousa, D. P., de Freitas, R. M., & de Almeida, R. N. (2013). Antinociceptive and Antioxidant Activities of Phytol In Vivo and In Vitro Models. Neuroscience Journal. https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/949452

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.