ArticleJournal of pharmacopuncture2025
Antibacterial and Antibiofilm Properties of Kulim Bark (
Article in Journal of pharmacopuncture, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: The study aimed to analyze the antibacterial and antibiofilm activity of hydrogels from Kulim ( Methods: The stem bark extract and fraction of Kulim ( Results: Kulim extract hydrogel (4 μg/µL) showed 69.16% antibacterial activity and 61.25% biofilm inhibition, with 72.58% and 82.86% biofilm degradation at 24 and 48 hours, respectively. The fraction-based hydrogel (0.22 μg/µL) had 58.10% antibacterial and biofilm inhibition activity, with 81.14% and 79.64% degradation at 24 and 48 hours. MIC50 and MBIC50 values were 2.42 μg/µL (extract) and 0.15 μg/µL (fraction) as well as 2.83 μg/µL and 0.19 μg/µL, respectively. Based on observation, MBEC50 values were 1.09 μg/µL and 0.57 μg/µL (24 h), as well as 0.70 μg/µL and 0.03 μg/µL (48 h), respectively, while the extract's LC50 was 0.143 mg/mL. Conclusion: The hydrogel made from Kulim stem bark extract exhibited stronger antibacterial and antibiofilm activities than the ethyl acetate fraction against polymicrobial.
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.