Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29922961›Full record

ArticleEcoHealth2018

Vertebrates as a Bactericidal Agent.

F S Ferreira, S V Brito, H D M Coutinho, E P Souza, W O Almeida, R R N Alves

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in EcoHealth, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

F S FerreiraUniversidade Federal do Vale do São Francisco, Colegiado Acadêmico de Ecologia, Senhor do Bonfim, BA, Brazil. ferreira_fs@yahoo.com.br.
S V BritoUniversidade Federal do Maranhão, Centro de Ciências Agrárias e Ambientais, Chapadinha, MA, Brazil.
H D M CoutinhoDepartamento de Química Biológica, Universidade Regional do Cariri, Crato, CE, Brazil.
E P SouzaDepartamento de Morfologia, Universidade Federal do Ceará, Fortaleza, CE, Brazil.
W O AlmeidaDepartamento de Química Biológica, Universidade Regional do Cariri, Crato, CE, Brazil.
R R N AlvesDepartamento de Biologia, Universidade Estadual da Paraíba, Campina Grande, PB, Brazil.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In Brazil, although a large number of animals are used in traditional medicine (at least 354 species), information about their biological activities is scarce. In this context, the objective of this study was to evaluate the bactericidal potential of zootherapeutic by-products from animals used in Brazilian traditional medicine and discuss the ecological and cultural consequences of such practices. The species analyzed were: Tupinambis merianae (skin), Iguana iguana (skin and body fat), Crotalus durissus (skin and body fat), Boa constrictor (skin), Euphractus sexcinctus (body fat) and Coendou prehensilis (quills). Experiments were performed with standard clinical strains of Escherichia coli (EC-ATCC10536) and Staphylococcus aureus (SA-ATCC 25923). For the microbiological assay, the zootherapeutics were evaluated using serial microdilutions. The results indicate that none of the samples possess inhibitory activity against standard bacterial strains. The in vitro ineffectiveness of the analyzed products demonstrate a necessity for new pharmacological research that encompass a large number of species of medicinal animals as well as highlight the importance of zootherapy in the context of plans for animal conservation.

Indexed as

VertebratesAnimalsAnti-Bacterial AgentsBrazilEscherichia coliHumansMedicine, TraditionalStaphylococcus aureusTissue ExtractsAnti-Bacterial AgentsTissue ExtractsConservationGame vertebratesInfectionZootherapy

Identifiers

PMID29922961

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.