ReviewFolia microbiologica2026
Methodological heterogeneity in mushroom extract antimicrobial research (2012-2025): a structured narrative evidence gap analysis and proposed reporting framework.
Review in Folia microbiologica, 2026. 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Mushroom (Basidiomycete) extracts have been investigated for over two decades as candidate natural antimicrobial agents amid rising concern over antimicrobial resistance, yet the comparability of this evidence base remains unresolved because assay type, solvent system, concentration units, and inoculum standardization vary widely across studies. This structured narrative evidence gap analysis maps post-2012 primary and review literature on mushroom extract antimicrobial activity, assesses whether methodological heterogeneity continues to prevent quantitative pooling, and proposes a tiered reporting framework to guide future standardization. A single-reviewer, AI-assisted search was conducted between 15 January and 30 June 2025 across major databases and Philippine institutional journal platforms, supplemented by two-generation forward and backward citation snowballing from two anchor reviews. This exercise is positioned as a preliminary gap analysis rather than a completed systematic or scoping review; no dual-reviewer screening, licensed database export, or formal risk-of-bias appraisal was performed. Eleven sources met eligibility criteria: three narrative reviews and eight primary in vitro studies. Susceptibility patterns for Gram-positive versus Gram-negative bacteria were inconsistent across the primary studies. Among studies that directly compared solvents, polar organic extracts showed greater antimicrobial activity than aqueous extracts in each of the three studies making a direct within-study comparison, though this pattern rests on a small, species- and method-heterogeneous sample and should not yet be generalised. Outcome units were not interchangeable, and reporting of replicates, inoculum density, and strain identifiers was inconsistent. The standardization gap identified over a decade earlier persists; quantitative meta-analysis is not currently supportable. A two-tier reporting framework is proposed to improve comparability and prepare future primary studies for pooled analysis, pending validation through a broader dual-reviewer systematic review with full database access.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42799815What 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.