. 2013 Jan 7;81(2):393–422. doi: 10.3797/scipharm.1211-21

Tab. 1.

Results of anti-inflammatory activity of the tested compounds against carrageenan-induced rat paw edema in rats; Calculated lipophilicity C log P values.

Comp. No.	Mean increase in edema weight ± SEM^a,b	Mean % increase in edema weight ± SEM	%Inhibition of Paw edema from control group	% Activity relative to indo-methacine	C log P
Control	1.57 ± 0.033	20.84 ± 0.237	–	–	–
Indomethacin	0.50 ± 0.026^*	6.37 ± 0.366^*	68.15	100.0	–
5	1.05 ± 0.089^*	19.82 ± 1.600	33.12	48.60	1.36
7a	1.03 ± 0.033^*	15.32 ± 0.515^*	34.39	50.46	2.15
7b	1.00 ± 0.063^*	15.19 ± 1.400^*	36.31	53.28	2.87
8a	0.98 ± 0.017^*	12.48 ± 0.376^*	37.58	55.14	3.14
8b	0.93 ± 0.042^*	12.98 ± 0.702^*	40.76	59.81	3.85
9a	0.90 ± 0.058^*	12.71 ± 0.748^*	42.68	62.63	2.09
9b	0.82 ± 0.048^*	15.71 ± 1.035^*	47.77	70.10	2.80
10a	0.75 ± 0.022^*	9.50 ± 0.326^*	52.23	76.64	2.19
10b	0.65 ± 0.022^*	8.31 ± 0.430^*	58.60	85.99	2.91
11a	0.73 ± 0.021^*	10.54 ± 0.468^*	53.50	78.50	6.65
11b	0.67 ± 0.049^*	8.42 ± 0.482^*	57.32	84.11	7.52
11c	0.72 ± 0.031^*	10.76 ± 0.457^*	54.14	79.44	7.37
11d	0.68 ± 0.065^*	8.73 ± 0.868^*	56.69	83.18	7.37
11e	0.52 ± 0.031^*	8.74 ± 0.929^*	66.88	98.14	8.23
11f	0.55 ± 0.043^*	9.29 ± 0.961^*	64.97	95.33	8.08
12a	1.02 ± 0.060^*	13.56 ± 0.795^*	35.03	51.40	1.77
12b	0.85 ± 0.043^*	19.33 ± 0.905	45.86	67.29	2.48
13	0.95 ± 0.043^*	15.10 ± 1.066^*	39.49	57.95	1.40
14	0.87 ± 0.076^*	11.12 ± 1.138^*	44.59	65.43	1.68
15	0.92 ± 0.060^*	16.35 ± 1.016^*	41.40	60.75	1.93
16	1.13 ± 0.067^*	14.33 ± 0.980^*	28.03	41.13	2.78
17	1.10 ± 0.052^*	15.77 ± 0.756 ^*	29.94	43.93	2.26

SEM denoted the standard error of the mean.

Number of animals N = 6 rats.

* Significant difference from control group using Dunnett’s test; p< 0.001.