ArticleInternational journal of microbiology2026
In Vitro Effects of
Article in International journal of microbiology, 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.
- In Vitro Effects ofInternational journal of microbiology · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Methods: The aqueous and 80% ethanolic extracts of Results: The ethanolic extract contained more flavonoids and flavonols and exhibited stronger DPPH scavenging activity than the aqueous extract, which had more total phenolics. In broth microdilution, the ethanolic extract inhibited SS1-SS3 growth at 48 mg/mL (MIC), whereas the aqueous extract did not reach an MIC within the tested range (MIC > 48 mg/mL). No bactericidal effect was observed for the ethanolic extract (MBC > 48 mg/mL). Both extracts reduced biofilm inhibition in a concentration-dependent manner. The ethanolic extract demonstrated significantly higher efficacy, achieving up to 85.6% inhibition (for SS2) at 48 mg/mL, compared with the aqueous extract, which reached up to 71.6% inhibition (for SS2) at the same concentration. In SS2, the ethanolic extract at the sub-MIC reduced Conclusions: Both aqueous and ethanolic
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.