Shipping to United States We Offer Worldwide Shipping
Login Wishlist



  • Brand : BIOFRON

  • Catalogue Number : BD-P0347

  • Specification : 98.0%(HPLC)

  • CAS number : 90685-26-0

  • Formula : C29H38O14

  • Molecular Weight : 610.61

  • PUBCHEM ID : 10031663

  • Volume : 25mg

Available on backorder

Checkout Bulk Order?

Catalogue Number


Analysis Method






Molecular Weight




Botanical Source

Structure Type






methyl 3-(3-methylbut-2-enyl)-1,4-bis[[(2S,3R,4S,5S,6R)-3,4,5-trihydroxy-6-(hydroxymethyl)oxan-2-yl]oxy]naphthalene-2-carboxylate


methyl 3-(3-methylbut-2-enyl)-1,4-bis[[(2S,3R,4S,5S,6R)-3,4,5-trihydroxy-6-(hydroxymethyl)oxan-2-yl]oxy]naphthalene-2-carboxylate



1.5±0.1 g/cm3


Soluble in Chloroform,Dichloromethane,Ethyl Acetate,DMSO,Acetone,etc.

Flash Point

288.3±27.8 °C

Boiling Point

889.2±65.0 °C at 760 mmHg

Melting Point



InChl Key


WGK Germany


HS Code Reference


Personal Projective Equipment

Correct Usage

For Reference Standard and R&D, Not for Human Use Directly.

Meta Tag

provides coniferyl ferulate(CAS#:90685-26-0) MSDS, density, melting point, boiling point, structure, formula, molecular weight etc. Articles of coniferyl ferulate are included as well.>> amp version: coniferyl ferulate

No Technical Documents Available For This Product.




Antiplatelet therapy is very important following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). New generation P2Y12 inhibitors (ticagrelor and prasugrel) might potentially replace clopidogrel for the treatment of post-interventional acute coronary syndrome (ACS). In this analysis, we aimed to systematically compare the post-interventional clinical outcomes and bleeding events observed with ticagrelor versus prasugrel in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

EMBASE, MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and were carefully searched for publications comparing the post-coronary interventional outcomes following ticagrelor versus prasugrel use in patients with T2DM. Adverse clinical outcomes and bleeding events were considered as the endpoints. Statistical analysis was carried out by the Revman software (version 5.3). Odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were used to represent the data during subgroup analysis.

A total of 2004 participants with T2DM were included in this analysis. Following PCI, mortality (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.57-1.76; P = 0.99, I2 = 19%), myocardial infarction (OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.42-1.75; P = 0.67, I2 = 0%), major adverse cardiac events (OR 0.73, 95% CI 0.42-1.27; P = 0.27, I2 = 0%), and stroke (OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.20-2.59; P = 0.61, I2 = 0%) were not significantly different between ticagrelor and prasugrel. In addition, total bleeding events (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.55-1.40; P = 0.58, I2 = 6%), Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) defined minor bleeding (OR 2.39, 95% CI 0.58-9.91; P = 0.23, I2 = 0%), TIMI defined major bleeding (OR 1.42, 95% CI 0.27-7.45; P = 0.68, I2 = 0%), bleeding defined according to the Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) major bleeding (OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.22-1.36; P = 0.20, I2 = 0%), BARC minor bleeding (OR 1.44, 95% CI 0.52-3.99; P = 0.48, I2 = 0%), and total minimal bleeding (OR 3.12, 95% CI 0.55-17.59; P = 0.20, I2 = 0%) were also not significantly different.

Ticagrelor and prasugrel were not associated with significantly different adverse clinical outcomes and bleeding events in these patients with T2DM. Therefore, both antiplatelet agents might safely be used in patients with T2DM following coronary intervention. However, this head-to-head comparison still remains a major challenge which should be resolved in larger clinical trials.


Bleeding events, Clinical outcomes, Percutaneous coronary intervention, Prasugrel, Ticagrelor, Type 2 diabetes mellitus


Ticagrelor Versus Prasugrel for the Treatment of Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Following Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis


Hua Yang,corresponding author1 Bing Tang,1 Chen Hong Xu,1 and Anis Ahmed2

Publish date

2019 Feb;




Peripherally inserted central catheters(PICC) lines are becoming increasingly popular in solid cancer patients for the administration of chemotherapy. This study aims looking at the incidence of PICC line related and distant thromboembolism associated with these catheters and exploring risk factors.

Records were reviewed for 158 patients who underwent PICC line insertion over the two years period in the medical oncology unit, Milton Keynes University Hospital. The Incidence PICC line related Deep Venous Thrombosis (DVT) which is defined as upper extremity DVT at the site of PICC line insertion was documented after checking reports of ultrasound Doppler of all symptomatic patients to confirm the presence of thrombo-embolism and Computed Tomography(CT)scan or Computed Tomography Pulmonary Angiography (CTPA) to confirm the presence Pulmonary Embolism(PE).

23(13%) symptomatic patients with confirmed diagnosis by ultrasound Doppler were found to have PICC line related DVT and similar number of patients developed distant VTE, namely PE and lower limbs DVT. Average time to thrombo-embolism from the insertion of PICC line was 13 days and 51 days in distant VTE. Statistically significant results have been identified in the term of risk factors leading to VTE events during the period of PICC line insertion.

VTE is a common complication in medical oncology patients who underwent insertion PICC line insertion for chemotherapy. Risk of distant VTE is high as well as the PICC line related DVT and the risk of the PICC line related DVT is higher in the first two weeks after PICC insertion. We concluded that high BMI,high PLTs count and Fluropyrimidine containing chemotherapy are all significant risk factors for VTE events recorded while smoking and high BMI are significantly contributing to the high rate of the PICC line related DVT.


Predictive risk factors of venous thromboembolism (VTE) associated with peripherally inserted central catheters (PICC) in ambulant solid cancer patients: retrospective single Centre cohort study


Osamah Al-Asadi,corresponding author1,2,3 Manar Almusarhed,1,2,4 and Hany Eldeeb1,2

Publish date





The importance of teaching the skills and practice of evidence-based medicine (EBM) for medical professionals has steadily grown in recent years. Alongside this growth is a need to evaluate the effectiveness of EBM curriculum as assessed by competency in the five ‘A’s’: asking, acquiring, appraising, applying and assessing (impact and performance). EBM educators in medical education will benefit from a compendium of existing assessment tools for assessing EBM competencies in their settings. The purpose of this review is to provide a systematic review and taxonomy of validated tools that evaluate EBM teaching in medical education.

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane library, Educational Resources Information Centre (ERIC), Best Evidence Medical Education (BEME) databases and references of retrieved articles published between January 2005 and March 2019. We have presented the identified tools along with their psychometric properties including validity, reliability and relevance to the five domains of EBM practice and dimensions of EBM learning. We also assessed the quality of the tools to identify high quality tools as those supported by established interrater reliability (if applicable), objective (non-self-reported) outcome measures and achieved ≥ 3 types of established validity evidence. We have reported our study in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines.

We identified 1719 potentially relevant articles of which 63 full text articles were assessed for eligibility against inclusion and exclusion criteria. Twelve articles each with a unique and newly identified tool were included in the final analysis. Of the twelve tools, all of them assessed the third step of EBM practice (appraise) and four assessed just that one step. None of the twelve tools assessed the last step of EBM practice (assess). Of the seven domains of EBM learning, ten tools assessed knowledge gain, nine assessed skills and-one assessed attitude. None addressed reaction to EBM teaching, self-efficacy, behaviours or patient benefit. Of the twelve tools identified, six were high quality. We have also provided a taxonomy of tools using the CREATE framework, for EBM teachers in medical education.

Six tools of reasonable validity are available for evaluating most steps of EBM and some domains of EBM learning. Further development and validation of tools that evaluate all the steps in EBM and all educational outcome domains are needed.

Systematic review registration
PROSPERO CRD42018116203.


Evidence-based medicine, Competency, Medical education, Assessment


A systematic review and taxonomy of tools for evaluating evidence-based medicine teaching in medical education


Bharathy Kumaravel,corresponding author1 Jasmine Heath Hearn,2 Leila Jahangiri,3 Rachel Pollard,4 Claire J. Stocker,5 and David Nunan6

Publish date