ArticleBMC complementary medicine and therapies2020
Evaluation of the antimicrobial activity and safety of Rhus vulgaris (Anacardiaceae) extracts.
Article in BMC complementary medicine and therapies, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.
- Ethnopharmacological considerations of plants traditionally used by local communities to manage maternal conditions in Tanzania: a scoping review.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025Review
- Article
- Designing, Characterization, and Optimization of Nystatin Loaded Mucoadhesive Spanlastical Hard Candy Lozenges as a Treatment of Oral Candidiasis: An in-vivo Study on Rats.Drug design, development and therapy · 2025Article
- Green synthesis of silver nanoparticles using sumac fruit by microwave and traditional methods: characterization, anticancer, and antimicrobial activities.Turkish journal of chemistry · 2025Article
- Medicinal plants utilized in the management of epilepsy in Ethiopia: ethnobotany, pharmacology and phytochemistry.Chinese medicine · 2022Review
- A Systematic Review of Medicinal Plants of Kenya used in the Management of Bacterial Infections.Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM · 2022Review
- Growth-Defense Trade-Offs Induced by Long-term Overgrazing Could Act as a Stress Memory.Frontiers in plant science · 2022Article
- Anti-Inflammatory Potential of the Oleoresin from the Amazonian TreeVeterinary sciences · 2021Article
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMedicinal plants have been used in the treatment of various ailments in most developing countries. Oral infections are the most prevalent diseases in man. The Rhus family has been found to have antimicrobial, antimalarial, and anti-inflammatory properties. Few studies have been done on Rhus vulgaris Meikle. A study was conducted to determine the effect of Rhus vulgaris Meikle stem bark extracts against selected oral pathogenic microorganisms and the safety of the extracts in vitro and in vivo.
methodsMethanol:dichloromethane (1:1), methanol and aqueous extracts were tested for bacteriostatic and bactericidal effects against Methicillin Resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), Staphylococcus aureus, Streptococcus mutans and Candida albicans. Cytotoxicity of the active extracts was determined using Vero E6 cell lines while safety was evaluated in mice and rats. Phytochemical screening was performed on the methanol extracts. One-way ANOVA and Tukey's multiple comparisons tests were performed using IBM SPSS statistics 20.0 for antimicrobial assay and acute toxicity testing. One-way ANOVA and Dunnett's multiple comparison tests were conducted using GraphPad Prism 8.0 for cytotoxicity assay.
resultsMethanol extract of Rhus vulgaris showed significant antimicrobial activity against MRSA (12.00 ± 0.00 mm; p-value of < 0.005; Minimum Inhibitory Concentration of 0.391 mg/ml; Minimum Bactericidal Concentration of 1.563 mg/ml). The extract were not cytotoxic at 100 μg/ml which was the highest tested concentration. In acute dermal irritation testing, the methanol extract resulted in mild irritation with erythema and flaking that cleared within 8 days. There were no observable adverse effects from oral administration of the extracts (acute oral toxicity testing) at concentrations of 50 mg/kg, 300 mg/kg and 2000 mg/kg. Tannins, saponins, flavonoids, terpenoids, glycosides, alkaloids and phenols were detected in the methanol extract.
conclusionsAntimicrobial activity of R. vulgaris extracts supports its traditional use as a toothbrush. Cytotoxicity demonstrated by the extracts as well as the mild skin irritation warrants further study before R. vulgaris can be recommended for the development of effective and safe mouthwashes.
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.