Copyright
©The Author(s) 2026.
World J Diabetes. Feb 15, 2026; 17(2): 113992
Published online Feb 15, 2026. doi: 10.4239/wjd.v17.i2.113992
Published online Feb 15, 2026. doi: 10.4239/wjd.v17.i2.113992
Table 1 The effect of polyherbal extract treatment on body weight of control and experimental groups, mean ± SEM
Table 2 The effect of polyherbal extract treatment on blood glucose, insulin and haemoglobin level of control and experimental groups, mean ± SEM
| Groups1 | Blood glucose (mg/dL) | Insulin (ng/mL) | Haemoglobin (%) |
| Control | 96.4 ± 3.6 | 3.8 ± 0.65 | 4.9 ± 0.61 |
| Diabetic | 284.4 ± 5.1a (+195.02%) | 0.68 ± 0.36a (-82.11%) | 7.9 ± 0.52a (+61.22%) |
| Diabetic + PHE | 198.6 ± 4.9d (-30.17%) | 2.8 ± 0.46d (+311.76%) | 6.4 ± 0.71d (-18.99%) |
| Diabetic + Met | 168.3 ± 4.1d (-40.82%) | 3.1 ± 0.69d (+355.88%) | 5.9 ± 0.41d (-25.32%) |
| Control + PHE | 119.5 ± 4.6 (+23.96%) | 3.4 ± 0.67 (-10.53 %) | 5.1 ± 0.56 (+4.08%) |
Table 3 The effect of polyherbal extract treatment on lipid profile of control and experimental groups, mean ± SEM
| Groups/parameters1 | Total cholesterol (mg/dL) | Triglycerides (mg/dL) | High-density lipoprotein cholesterol (mg/dL) | Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (mg/dL) | Very low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (mg/dL) |
| Control | 125.33 ± 3.2 | 98.57 ± 4.3 | 58.62 ± 1.9 | 47.0 ± 2.3 | 19.71 ± 1.8 |
| Diabetic | 288.75 ± 4.7c (+130.39%) | 187.05 ± 5.3b (+89.776%) | 27.34 ± 1.6b (-53.36%) | 224.0 ± 4.6c (+376.59%) | 37.41 ± 1.9b (+89.80%) |
| Diabetic + PHE | 178.44 ± 3.9e (-38.20%) | 158.34 ± 5.2d (-15.35%) | 42.33 ± 2.4e (+54.83%) | 104.4 ± 3.8e (-53.39%) | 31.67 ± 1.6d (-15.34%) |
| Diabetic + Met | 148.42 ± 4.2f (-48.59%) | 139.22 ± 4.9d (-25.57%) | 48.78 ± 2.9e (+78.42%) | 71.8 ± 3.2f (-67.95%) | 27.84 ± 1.7d (-25.58%) |
| Control + PHE | 130.65 ± 3.3 (+4.24%) | 119.76 ± 4.4 (+21.49%) | 52.65 ± 3.1 (-10.18%) | 54.1 ± 3.1 (+15.11%) | 23.92 ± 2.1 (+21.36%) |
Table 4 Effect of polyherbal extract on quantitative histopathological changes in the pancreas and sciatic nerve tissue, mean ± SEM
| Groups | Number of islets, 10 × field | Diameter of the islet | Sciatic nerve damage score |
| Control | 6.33 ± 0.29 | 163.62 ± 12.71 | 0.0 ± 0.0 |
| Diabetic | 3.7 ± 0.32a | 95.83 ± 5.10a | 2.85 ± 0.16a |
| Diabetic+ PHE | 4.6 ± 0.42d | 145.81 ± 6.32d | 1.62 ± 0.23d |
| Diabetic + Met | 4.9 ± 0.52d | 140.22 ± 6.72d | 1.59 ± 0.24d |
| Control + PHE | 5.89 ± 0.37 | 156.47 ± 8.90 | 0.12 ± 0.02 |
- Citation: Kausar MA, Parveen K, Anwar S, Khan YS, Saleh AA, Ahmed MAA, Siddiqui WA, Parvez S. Neuroprotective potential of a plant-based intervention in diabetic neuropathy: Biochemical and behavioral insights from a streptozotocin-induced rat model. World J Diabetes 2026; 17(2): 113992
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1948-9358/full/v17/i2/113992.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4239/wjd.v17.i2.113992
