Table 2 |
||||
|
Change in histopathologic scores (mean ± SD)* |
||||
|
Sham |
BDL |
BDL + vehicle |
BDL + fenofibrate |
|
|
|
||||
|
Portal inflammation |
0 |
3.2 ± 0.2a |
3.1 ± 0.7a |
2.0 ± 0.5a,b,c |
|
Interface hepatitis |
0 |
1.8 ± 0.7a |
1.7 ± 0.9a |
1.3 ± 0.6a,b,c |
|
Confluent necrosis |
0 |
2.2 ± 0.a |
2.1 ± 0.9a |
1.1 ± 0.2a,b,c |
|
Lobar necrosis |
0 |
3.0 ± 0.9a |
2.9 ± 0.7a |
2.1 ± 0.8a,b,c |
|
Bile duct number/5 portal field |
3.5 ± 1.3 |
18.9 ± 8.0a |
17.5 ± 7.1a |
23.2 ± 11.1a,b,c |
|
|
||||
|
*Comparisons between groups were done by using Kruskal-Wallis test. Paired comparisons are done by using Mann-Whitney U test. aP < 0.01 versus sham group (Mann-Whitney U) bP < 0.01 as compared to BDL group (Mann-Whitney U) cP < 0.01 as compared to BDL + vehicle group (Mann-Whitney U) |
||||
|
Cindoruk et al. BMC Gastroenterology 2007 7:44 doi:10.1186/1471-230X-7-44 |
||||