Hydrogenology
Hydrogenology editorial study record

Hydrogen-Rich Saline Promotes Survival of Retinal Ganglion Cells in a Rat Model of Optic Nerve Crush

Sun JC, Xu T, Zuo Q, Wang RB, Qi AQ, Cao WL, Sun AJ, Sun XJ, Xu J. · PloS one. 2014;9(6):e99299.

PreclinicalOther formsPublished 2014
Study record, not medical adviceThis page reports one source and Hydrogenology’s source-text extraction. It does not establish that molecular hydrogen is effective, safe or appropriate for any person. Human, animal and laboratory evidence must not be treated as equivalent.
Source and classification

What kind of evidence is this?

Evidence stream

Preclinical

Reported design

Controlled animal and cell study

Research topic

Eye health

Administration classification

Other forms

Study result signal

Not reported in this record.

Outcome type

Not reported in this record.

Reported in the source

Methods at a glance

Population or model

rats, cell, cells, rabbit used to study eye health.

Sample

Preclinical study; the article does not state one consolidated sample total, so no total is inferred.

Duration

2 weeks

Intervention

Full text reports H₂ dissolved in saline. Detected intervention quantities or schedules: 5 ml/kg, 2 weeks.

Hydrogen form

H₂ dissolved in saline — H₂ only unless the full text explicitly reports oxygen co-delivery.

H₂ specification

H₂-related quantities reported in the intervention passages: 5 ml/kg, 2 weeks. Values are not combined across different experimental arms.

H₂ flow

Not applicable — no inhaled H₂ intervention was identified in the full article.

O₂ delivered with H₂

No inhaled O₂ co-delivery was identified for this non-inhalation intervention.

Comparator

Placebo or matched control reported in the full article.

Reported, not endorsed

Outcomes and reported result

Outcomes measured

survival or mortality, clinical symptoms or functional scores, tumor growth or cancer markers, oxidative-stress and antioxidant markers, apoptosis or cell injury, metabolic laboratory measures

Reported result

Article-reported result excerpt (24 words maximum): “There is no difference between sham group and H_2 group (P = 0.246).” This excerpt is not a complete result summary; consult the linked full text for all positive and null findings.

Results-extraction completeness

The complete machine-readable article was checked for source identity, methods, intervention quantities, results, tables, funding and conflict declarations. This public record is based on the full article.

A reported association, difference or mechanism is not automatically a clinical benefit. Null findings, outcome type, study design and precision all matter.

Interpretation limits

Cautions and applicability

Design and reporting cautions

Preclinical evidence only; findings do not establish a treatment effect in people. No funding statement was identified in the machine-readable full article; absence is not inferred. No explicit conflict statement was identified in the machine-readable full article; absence is not inferred.

Applies directly to

Applies to the reported animal, cell or tissue model, not directly to patients.

Preliminary appraisal framework

Not reported in this record.

Preliminary risk-of-bias status

Not reported in this record.

Appraisal rationale

Not reported in this record.

No single-study GRADE certainty rating is assigned. Certainty is assessed by important outcome across a complete eligible evidence set, not by attaching a final grade to one source.

Provenance

Sources and record status

Identifiers

PMID: 24915536 · DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0099299

Publisher access

A free full article is available through PubMed Central.

Extraction basis

Official Europe PMC JATS full article and PubMed/PMC identifiers; structured full-text extraction and validation completed 8 August 2026.

Record revision

2026-08-10