ArticleBioinformation2020
A comparative study of antibacterial and antifungal activities of extracts from four indigenous plants.
Article in Bioinformation, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Ethnopharmocological study of medicinal plants used for treatment of skin diseases by herbalists in Northwestern region of Algeria.PloS one · 2026Article
- The potential of mollusc-associated fungi as anti-pathogens.Open veterinary journal · 2026Article
- Phytochemical profile and antimicrobial activity of individual frond extracts of Menisorus pauciflorus, Pteris catoptera, Conniogramme africana and Antrophyum mannianum.BMC complementary medicine and therapies · 2025Article
- Aloe vera leaf extract as a sustainable route for silver nanoparticle synthesis with enhanced antimicrobial activity.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Article
- Identification of antinutritional, antioxidant, and antimicrobial activity of plants that cause livestock poisoning in Bojonegoro Regency, Indonesia.Veterinary world · 2022Article
- Caribbean Women's Health and Transnational Ethnobotany.Economic botany · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A repetitive and wide use of chemical antibiotics has brought a serious threat in the biomedical and clinical sectors by the emergence of multidrug resistant pathogens. Plants have secondary metabolites that make them suitable candidate for natural antimicrobial agent without any side effect. In this study, we assessed comparative antibacterial and antifungal effects of extracts from four Indigenous plants (Nerium sp; Mentha sp; Aloe vera and Eucalyptus sp). Total phenolic and flavonoid content were extracted by microwave-assisted extractor and used for phytochemical assay. Antimicrobial experiment was done by micro dilution technique. A post hoc analysis inbuilt with one-way ANOVA test was used for the compilation of antibiotic sensitivity data and percent inhibition. Total phenolic content was significantly high in Mentha sp. and low in Nerium sp. (All p < 0.05). In antibacterial and antifungal activity higher concentrations of extracts showed a strong activity, which was as good as antibiotics used as control. Results from Eucalyptus sample showed a significant growth reducing capability even at lower concentrations. This study concludes that the plant extracts can be used to treat microbial infections with almost same efficacy as antibiotics and with a lower chance of resistance development.
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.