ArticleNew microbes and new infections2023
Article in New microbes and new infections, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Phytochemical composition, in vitro antioxidant and antibacterial activities of Dorstenia barnimiana Schweinf leaf extracts.BMC complementary medicine and therapies · 2026Article
- Synergistic effects ofFrontiers in antibiotics · 2025Article
- Green Synthesis, Characterization and Pharmaceutical Applications of Biocompatible Zinc Oxide Nanoparticles UsingPharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Ethnomedicine, antibacterial activity, antioxidant potential and phytochemical screening of selected medicinal plants in Dibatie district, Metekel zone, western Ethiopia.BMC complementary medicine and therapies · 2024Article
- Nanoemulsion and nanoencapsulation of a hydroethanolic extract of Nettle (Frontiers in chemistry · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Plants contain a variety of bioactive compounds that provide them antimicrobial properties, which can be used to develop novel antibiotics. The current research evaluated the antibacterial activity of 6 medicinal plants Methods: The bacterial contamination of these plants was evaluated by using their surface-washed water. The combined effects of commercially available antibiotics along with these medicinal plants were also tested. We used the solvent extraction method, conventional cell culture technique, minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) assay, and disc diffusion method for our analysis. Results: The surface-washed water was contaminated with variable bacteria. The plants displayed notable antibacterial activity against most of the tested bacteria. Ethanol and hot water extract of plants exhibited minimum inhibitory effects, while the methanol extract of plants showed very potent antibacterial activity against most of the bacteria with inhibitory zone diameter up to 14 mm. In the case of combined effects, the zone diameter increased up to 26 mm, which is a significant improvement compared to the individual plant extracts. Interpretation: This data suggested that the combination of two antibacterial agents, one natural and the other synthetic, would be more efficient in the treatment of multidrug-resistant bacteria than a single monotherapy of either of the antibacterial agents.
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.