ArticlePharmacognosy research
Comparative Physicochemical Evaluation of Kharekhasak (
Article in Pharmacognosy research. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesMudabbar/
methodsMudabbar/Tadbeer process was carried out by blending fresh KK. Juice with powdered dry KK and drying it under the sun. Juice used for process is thrice the weight of dry KK powder. The KK before and after the process was evaluated using physicochemical tests: powder characterization, extractive value, alcohol and water soluble matter, ash value, loss on drying (LOD) at 105°C, pH, high-performance thin layer chromatography (HPTLC) fingerprinting, and diosgenin content.
resultsPowder characterizations were set in. Increase in successive and nonsuccessive extractive values in various solvents, water/alcohol-soluble content, total ash, acid-insoluble ash, water-soluble ash, and sulfated ash of MKK was noted in comparison with KK. Decrease in LOD at 105°C and pH of MKK powder was observed. HPTLC fingerprinting data were developed for the identification and evaluation. Quantification of diosgenin content increased to 432.1 g/g in MKK as compared to 144.5 g/g in KK, suggesting significant increase in saponin content.
conclusionData obtained clearly indicated changes in MKK validating the classical Mudabbar process, probably to enhance/modify the action of drug. Standards for crude and MKK were established for future reference. SUMMARY: Mudabbar process on
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.