Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31113428›Full record

ReviewBMC complementary and alternative medicine2019

Avoiding pitfalls in determining antimicrobial activity of plant extracts and publishing the results.

Jacobus Nicolaas Eloff

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BMC complementary and alternative medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 89 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
89citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
19.8field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

89 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 202 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Appraising the therapeutical potentials ofFrontiers in pharmacology · 2022
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Plants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Frontiers in veterinary science · 2026
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Ethnoveterinary Potential ofPlants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Microorganisms · 2025
    Article
  19. Review
  20. Antibacterial activity ofFrontiers in microbiology · 2025
    Article

29 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Jacobus Nicolaas EloffDepartment of Agriculture and Animal Health,College of Agriculture and Environmental Sciences, University of South Africa, Johannesburg, South Africa. kobus.eloff@up.ac.za.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1494-9842
University of South Africa · ZA

Funding

National Research Foundation Incentive Funding
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere is an urgent need to discover new antimicrobial compounds or extracts to address the crucial problem of increasing microbial resistance against current antibiotics. Plant chemical biodiversity is a valuable potential resource. Although compounds from plants are used as basis for several human drugs, no commercially successful antibiotic has yet been discovered from plants, despite more than a thousand publications in this field per year. This may be due to wrong methods that have been used or wrong plants that were investigated. A lot of energy is wasted by using techniques such as agar diffusion that do not work well with plant extracts. Many manuscripts are rejected before sending to reviewers because wrong methods are used. Antimicrobial activity of plant extracts based on agar diffusion studies have limited value.

methodsResults obtained from several hundred of our publications in this area as researcher and experience as editor was used to identify difficulties in generating reproducible data. Other publications were also consulted and procedures used were evaluated.

resultsBecause many of the antimicrobial compounds in plant extracts are relatively non-polar, these compounds do not diffuse well in the aqueous agar matrix used in agar diffusion studies. So many other factors also influence the zone of inhibition, that results between different laboratories are not comparable. The different methods used to determine the minimal inhibitory concentration (MIC) in serial dilution studies have been discussed. Using p-iodonitrotetrazolium violet to indicate growth provided the best results. Factors such as inoculum size, solvent, selection of positive controls and selection of plants to investigate also play a role. A method developed to determine antibacterial and antifungal activity of plant extracts work very well and is widely used based on > 1830 citations.

conclusionsBy using proposed methods manuscripts will provide reproducible information that may be published in good journals. The publications could contribute to a rational basis for finding compounds or extracts from plants that may address the problem of antimicrobial resistance. Random screening of a large number of plant species using this technique have already led to some commercial applications and identification of a potentially new antifungal framework compound.

Indexed as

Anti-Infective AgentsMicrobial Sensitivity TestsPlant ExtractsBacteriaFungiAnti-Infective AgentsPlant ExtractsAgar diffusion assayExtractantPlant extractsSerial microplate dilution. p-iodonitrotetrazolium violet

Identifiers

PMID31113428
PMCPMC6530048
OpenAlexW2946594898

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.