Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38449800›Full record

ReviewScientifica2024

Microbial Biofungicides as a Substitute for Chemical Fungicides in the Control of Phytopathogens: Current Perspectives and Research Directions.

Lamenew Fenta, Habtamu Mekonnen

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Scientifica, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing 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

23 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Sustainable Management of Major Fungal Phytopathogens in Sorghum (Journal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Review
  16. Biopesticide Compounds from an Endolichenic FungusMolecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

2 authors.

Lamenew FentaDepartment of Biology, Debre Markos University, Debre Markos, Ethiopia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5172-0313
Habtamu MekonnenDepartment of Biology, Bahir Dar University, Bahir Dar, Ethiopia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7969-8170

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

These days, two important issues are causing concern in the global community: the alarmingly growing trend of the human population and the issue of food security. To this end, people around the world have been searching for solutions that could feed the needy in a sustainable way. In response to this urgent call, scientists from around the world started working on increasing crop production and productivity by controlling crop pathogens that could harm the productivity of crops. Synthetic fungicides have been in use for controlling crop diseases for several decades, but later, due to the evidenced side effects of the fungicides, there have been attempts to shift towards a less cost-effective and eco-friendly method of controlling crop diseases, and so far, many remarkable results have been achieved. However, due to the less effective and shorter shelf life of microbial biofungicides, as well as the less accessibility of these microbial biofungicides to growers around the world, it became difficult to remove the fungicides totally from the market. To minimize this problem, researchers suggested an integrated approach: the combination of microbial biofungicides with a reduced dose of synthetic fungicides. Hence, this review explored the status as well as the merits and demerits of microbial biofungicides as compared to synthetic fungicides.

Identifiers

PMID38449800
PMCPMC10917481

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.