Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34857039›Full record

ArticleBMC research notes2021

Validation of a method of broth microdilution for the determination of antibacterial activity of essential oils.

David Vanegas, Andrea Abril-Novillo, Aleksandr Khachatryan, Lourdes Jerves-Andrade, Eugenia Peñaherrera, Nancy Cuzco, Isabel Wilches, Jessica Calle, Fabián León-Tamariz

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC research notes, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 30 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing 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

30 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Isolation and Genomic Analysis ofAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Article
  15. Timbe (Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Anti-Heliyon · 2024
    Article
  20. Chemodiversity and Bioactivity of the Essential Oils ofInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2023
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

David VanegasDeparment of Biosciences, Group of Medicinal Plants and Natural Products, Faculty of Chemistry, School of Biochemistry and Pharmacy, Universidad de Cuenca, Cuenca, Ecuador.
Andrea Abril-NovilloDeparment of Biosciences, Group of Medicinal Plants and Natural Products, Faculty of Chemistry, School of Biochemistry and Pharmacy, Universidad de Cuenca, Cuenca, Ecuador.
Aleksandr KhachatryanDeparment of Biosciences, Group of Medicinal Plants and Natural Products, Faculty of Chemistry, School of Biochemistry and Pharmacy, Universidad de Cuenca, Cuenca, Ecuador.
Lourdes Jerves-AndradeDeparment of Biosciences, Group of Medicinal Plants and Natural Products, Faculty of Chemistry, School of Biochemistry and Pharmacy, Universidad de Cuenca, Cuenca, Ecuador.
Eugenia PeñaherreraDeparment of Biosciences, Group of Medicinal Plants and Natural Products, Faculty of Chemistry, School of Biochemistry and Pharmacy, Universidad de Cuenca, Cuenca, Ecuador.
Nancy CuzcoDeparment of Biosciences, Group of Medicinal Plants and Natural Products, Faculty of Chemistry, School of Biochemistry and Pharmacy, Universidad de Cuenca, Cuenca, Ecuador.
Isabel WilchesDeparment of Biosciences, Group of Medicinal Plants and Natural Products, Faculty of Chemistry, School of Biochemistry and Pharmacy, Universidad de Cuenca, Cuenca, Ecuador.
Jessica CalleDeparment of Biosciences, Group of Medicinal Plants and Natural Products, Faculty of Chemistry, School of Biochemistry and Pharmacy, Universidad de Cuenca, Cuenca, Ecuador.
Fabián León-TamarizDeparment of Biosciences, Group of Medicinal Plants and Natural Products, Faculty of Chemistry, School of Biochemistry and Pharmacy, Universidad de Cuenca, Cuenca, Ecuador. fabian.leont@ucuenca.edu.ec.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1540-8087

Funding

Research Direction of the University of Cuenca (DIUC) Cuenca-Ecuador project 204000_07_1682 winner of XVl DIUC call
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe aim of the present study was to adapt and optimize a broth microdilution method and compare it to the agar dilution method for the evaluation of activity of essential oils from medicinal plants against Gram-negative bacteria. Based on bibliographic research, active and not active oils were selected. The sensitivity and specificity were established as parameters for validation. The comparison between both methods was made using contingency analysis tables, based on the observed frequencies. For both methods, the minimum inhibitory concentration was determined against Escherichia coli strains, in an essential oil concentration range between 0.03 and 0.48% (v/v).

resultsA stable emulsion formation was achieved with the addition of Tween 80 and constant agitation, guaranteeing the continuous contact of oil with bacteria (critical step in the microdilution method). The statistical analysis of results obtained with both methods presented a good sensitivity and specificity (100% in both cases), which let us correctly discriminate between active and non-active oils. The values obtained for the minimal inhibitory concentration were independent of the technique used. Finally, the obtained results show that the validated microtechnique allows important diminishment of time and resources for investigations dealing with essential oils or lipophilic extracts evaluation.

Indexed as

Oils, VolatilePlants, MedicinalAnti-Bacterial AgentsGram-Negative BacteriaMicrobial Sensitivity TestsPlant OilsAnti-Bacterial AgentsOils, VolatilePlant OilsEscherichia coliEssential oilsMicrodilution assaySensitivitySpecificityValidation

Identifiers

PMID34857039
PMCPMC8638534

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.