Skip to main content
. 2013 Jan 24;168(4):946–953. doi: 10.1111/j.1476-5381.2012.02239.x

Table 1.

Effect of meloxicam (Melo), aminoguanidine (AG) and etanercept (ETA) on delivery time and pups status

Preterm delivery (%) Term delivery (%)
Treatment *n gd 16–17 gd 18 gd 19 gd 20 gd 21 gd 22 gd 23 Live/dead pups (%)
Control 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 100/0
Stx2 8 100 0 0 0 0 0 0a 0/100
Melo control 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 100/0
Melo + Stx2 8 100 0 0 0 0 0 0b 0/100
#AG control 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 100/0
#AG + Stx2 6 100 0 0 0 0 0 0c 0/100
#AG+ Melo control 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 100/0
#AG+ Melo + Stx2 6 0 0 50 17 33 0 0d 0/100
¥ETA control 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 100/0
¥ETA + Stx2 10 30 30 0 0 10 0 30 30/70
#AG + ¥ETA control 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 100/0
#AG + ¥ETA + Stx2 10 0 0 0 0 30 0 70e 70/30

Meloxicam: 2 μg g−1; #aminoguanidine 100 μg g−1; ¥etanercept 100 μg g−1. *n = number of rats.

aP < 0.005 versus control. bP < 0.005 versus meloxicam control. cP < 0.005 versus aminoguanidine control. dP < 0.005 versus aminoguanidine + meloxicam control. eP < 0.005 versus Stx2. a,b,c,d,eCalculated by Fisher exact test.