Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31952329›Full record

ArticleAntioxidants (Basel, Switzerland)2020

Quantification of the Antioxidant Activity of Plant Extracts: Analysis of Sensitivity and Hierarchization Based on the Method Used.

Natividad Chaves, Antonio Santiago, Juan Carlos Alías

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Antioxidants (Basel, Switzerland), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 148 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
148citing 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

148 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. The efficacy of sap obtained fromVeterinarni medicina · 2026
    Article
  9. Acetylcholinesterase inhibiting withanolides from Curvularia pseudobrachyspora, an endophytic fungus of Withania somnifera (L.) Dunal.Brazilian journal of microbiology : [publication of the Brazilian Society for Microbiology] · 2026
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Protective effect ofOpen veterinary journal · 2026
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

88 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

3 authors.

Natividad ChavesDepartment of Plant Biology, Ecology and Earth Sciences, Faculty of Science, University of Extremadura, 06006 Badajoz, Spain.
Antonio SantiagoDepartment of Plant Biology, Ecology and Earth Sciences, Faculty of Science, University of Extremadura, 06006 Badajoz, Spain.
Juan Carlos AlíasDepartment of Plant Biology, Ecology and Earth Sciences, Faculty of Science, University of Extremadura, 06006 Badajoz, Spain.

Funding

Consejería de Educación y Empleo, Junta de Extremadura (GR-18078)
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Plants have a large number of bioactive compounds with high antioxidant activity. Studies for the determination of the antioxidant activity of different plant species could contribute to revealing the value of these species as a source of new antioxidant compounds. There is a large variety of in vitro methods to quantify antioxidant activity, and it is important to select the proper method to determine which species have the highest antioxidant activity. The aim of this work was to verify whether different methods show the same sensitivity and/or capacity to discriminate the antioxidant activity of the extract of different plant species. To that end, we selected 12 species with different content of phenolic compounds. Their extracts were analyzed using the following methods: 2,2-di-phenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl (DPPH) radical scavenging capacity assay, ferric reducing (FRAP) assay, Trolox equivalent antioxidant capacity (ABTS) assay, and reducing power (RP) assay. The four methods selected could quantify the antioxidant capacity of the 12 study species, although there were differences between them. The antioxidant activity values quantified through DPPH and RP were higher than the ones obtained by ABTS and FRAP, and these values varied among species. Thus, the hierarchization or categorization of these species was different depending on the method used. Another difference established between these methods was the sensitivity obtained with each of them. A cluster revealed that RP established the largest number of groups at the shortest distance from the root. Therefore, as it showed the best discrimination of differences and/or similarities between species, RP is considered in this study as the one with the highest sensitivity among the four studied methods. On the other hand, ABTS showed the lowest sensitivity. These results show the importance of selecting the proper antioxidant activity quantification method for establishing a ranking of species based on this parameter.

Indexed as

ABTSantioxidant activity methodscategorization of speciesDPPHFRAPreducing power assay

Identifiers

PMID31952329
PMCPMC7023273

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.