ArticleScientifica2026
Phytochemical Composition and Antipseudomonal Activity of
Article in Scientifica, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Phytochemical Composition and Antipseudomonal Activity ofScientifica · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The discovery of alternative therapies for illnesses due to multidrug-resistant (MDR) bacteria is emerging as a global health crisis. This study aimed to assess the antibacterial efficacy of Methods: The extracts were subjected to phytochemical analysis using both qualitative and quantitative standard tests. The microdilution assay was used to evaluate the antibacterial properties and antibiotic resistance-modifying potential of the extracts. The interaction effect between the antibiotics and extracts was determined by checkerboard assay. Catalase activity and lipid peroxidation were assessed by measuring the foam height and malondialdehyde concentration, respectively. Results: The extracts exhibited minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) ranging from 16 to 2048 μg/mL. The hexane extracts of the leaves (HLE) and bark (HBE) displayed the highest antibacterial activity, with MIC ≤ 32 μg/mL against at least two investigated isolates. Furthermore, HLE decreased catalase activity and increased lipid peroxidation in Conclusion: Overall, the leaf and bark hexane extracts of
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.