ArticleVeterinary medicine and science2025
Antibacterial Activity of Traditional Medicinal Plants: Combating Antibiotics Resistance in Animal Wound Infections.
Article in Veterinary medicine and science, 2025. 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.
- Phytochemical Composition and Antibacterial Activity of Medicinal Plants Against Bacterial Pathogens Isolated From Livestock Wound Infections.MicrobiologyOpen · 2026Article
- Multidrug resistance and biofilm formation among bacterial isolates from chronic wounds in animals: evaluation of anti-biofilm activity.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2026Article
- Methanolic plant extracts: emerging biotherapeutic alternatives for animal wound infection control.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2026Article
- Phenolic Constituents Drive Antimicrobial and Antibiotic-Enhancing Activities ofPlants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Prevalence and antimicrobial drug resistance of gram-negative bacteria in dairy feed and water: a One Health concern.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2025Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
The rise of antibiotic resistance poses a significant challenge to veterinary medicine, particularly in the treatment of wound infections in animals. This study aimed to evaluate the antibacterial properties of traditional medicinal plants against four bacterial strains isolated from septic animal wound infections and to compare their effectiveness with broad-spectrum antibiotics. A total of 150 bacterial isolates were collected using sterile cotton swabs, cultured on nutrient and mannitol salt agar for growth and identified through catalase and coagulase tests. The study assessed antibiotic resistance and tested the bacterial isolates' susceptibility to medicinal plants using the disc diffusion method. Among the isolates, Staphylococcus aureus was the most common pathogen, accounting for 26.6% (40 isolates), followed by Escherichia coli at 26% (39 isolates). Streptococcus spp. and Pseudomonas spp. were found in 20% (30 isolates) and 16% (25 isolates), respectively. Antibiogram analysis revealed notable antibiotic resistance, with S. aureus showing the highest resistance to Ciprofloxacin (60.5%) and Rifampicin (57.5%). E. coli exhibited 61.5% resistance to Ciprofloxacin and 56.4% to streptomycin. Streptococcus spp. had the highest resistance to Ciprofloxacin (53.3%), whereas Pseudomonas spp. showed the greatest resistance to Chloramphenicol (52%). Ethanol extracts of the medicinal plants, prepared using various solvents, were utilized for testing. Ethanol extracts of Loranthus acaciae and Cymbopogon proximus at concentrations of 60-90 µL demonstrated the largest inhibition zones, ranging from 55.5 ± 3.85 to 57.5 ± 2.5 mm against E. coli and S. aureus. Inhibition zones for Streptococcus spp. and Pseudomonas spp. ranged from 50 ± 2 to 48.3 ± 1.7 mm. In comparison, the standard antibiotics exhibited inhibition zones of 58.95 ± 2.55-60 ± 2.5 mm against S. aureus and E. coli, with slightly lower zones (51.65 ± 1.6-49 ± 1 mm) observed for Streptococcus spp. and Pseudomonas spp. These findings underscore the significant antibacterial activity of medicinal plants against multidrug-resistant pathogens in animal wound infections, highlighting their potential to accelerate healing, reduce infection severity and provide a cost-effective alternative to combat antibiotic resistance.
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.