Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33770121›Full record

ArticlePloS one2021

Antimicrobial activities evaluation and phytochemical screening of some selected medicinal plants: A possible alternative in the treatment of multidrug-resistant microbes.

Taye Kebede, Eshetu Gadisa, Abreham Tufa

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 63 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
63citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

63 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Food science & nutrition · 2026
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Article
  15. Heliyon · 2025
    Article
  16. Review
  17. Correlation between antibacterial activities of twoJournal of biological methods · 2025
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Biochemistry research international · 2025
    Article

3 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.

Taye KebedeDepartment of Biomedical Sciences and Immunology, Natural Sciences College, Madda Walabu University, Bale-Robe, Ethiopia.ORCID 0000-0001-8611-4946
Eshetu GadisaDepartment of Medical Laboratory Science, Menelik Medical and Health Science College, Kotebe Metropolitan University, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Abreham TufaDepartment of Biochemistry, Natural Sciences College, Madda Walabu University, Bale-Robe, Ethiopia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFour out of five individuals rely on traditional medicine for their primary healthcare needs. Medicinal plants are endowed with diverse bioactive compounds to treat multidrug-resistant (MDR) microbes. So far, a less thorough examination has been made in this regard. This study aimed to evaluate antimicrobial activity and phytochemical screening of selected medicinal plants against MDR microbes.

methodsIn vitro experimental study was carried out to evaluate antimicrobial effects and phytochemical screening of Rumex abyssinicus, Cucumis pustulatus, Discopodium penninervium, Lippia adoensis, Euphorbia depauperata, Cirsium englerianum, and Polysphaeria aethiopica against MDR bacteria and fungi. Aqueous and 80% methanolic extraction methods were employed for extraction. The susceptibility test, minimum inhibitory concentration, and minimum bactericidal or fungicidal concentration were measured using disc diffusion or broth micro-dilution as per the CLSI protocols.

resultThe 80% methanolic extraction method was a preferred method to aqueous. The phytochemical constituents identified were alkaloids, flavonoids, saponins, phenolic, tannins, terpenoidss, and cardiac glycosides. The hydroalcoholic extract demonstrated an appreciable antimicrobial role against MDR microbes with an MIC value of 1.0-128.0μg/ml and 11-29mm inhibition zone (IZ) in diameter. Extracts obtained from C. englerianum and E. depauperata showed a significant IZ ranged of 26-29mm on MRSA and Streptococcus pyogenes. MDR E. coli and K. pneumoniae showed 12-25mm and 23-28mm IZ in diameter, respectively. T. mentagraphytes was susceptible to all tested extracts. Moreover, S. pyogenes and K. pneumoniae were found the most susceptible bacteria to C. englerianum. Cirsium englerianum, L. adoensis, D. penninervium, and R. abyssinicus demonstrated remarkable antifungal effect against C. albicans and T. mentagrophytes, while R. abyssinicus showed the leading antifungal effect with 32 to 64μg/ml MIC values.

conclusionThe plant extracts have shown appreciable antimicrobial activities comparable to the currently prescribed modern drugs tested. Accordingly, further studies on clinical efficacy trial, safety, toxicity and affordability analyses have to be instigated promptly, so as to head to the final step to synthesize precursor molecules for new effective antimicrobials.

Indexed as

Microbial Sensitivity TestsPhytochemicalsPlant ExtractsPlants, MedicinalAnti-Bacterial AgentsAntifungal AgentsAnti-Infective AgentsBacteriaDrug Resistance, Multiple, BacterialEuphorbiaFungiLippiaAnti-Bacterial AgentsAntifungal AgentsAnti-Infective AgentsPhytochemicalsPlant Extracts

Identifiers

PMID33770121
PMCPMC7997013

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.