Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42899091›Full record

ArticleRSC advances2026

Comparative biochemical analysis of tea (

Youmna E El-Saied, Abdullah A Elgazar, Fardous F El-Senduny, Nada E Hammouda, Omali Y El-Khawaga, Farid A Badria

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in RSC advances, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Youmna E El-SaiedBiochemistry Division, Chemistry Department, Mansoura University Mansoura 35516 Egypt elkhawaga70s@mans.edu.eg.
Abdullah A ElgazarDepartment of Pharmacognosy, Faculty of Pharmacy, Kafrelsheikh University Mansoura 33516 Egypt Abdulah.elgazar@phr.mans.edu.eg.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5851-3306
Fardous F El-SendunyBiochemistry Division, Chemistry Department, Mansoura University Mansoura 35516 Egypt elkhawaga70s@mans.edu.eg.
Nada E HammoudaUnit of Drug Analysis, Faculty of Pharmacy, Mansoura University 35516 Egypt.
Omali Y El-KhawagaBiochemistry Division, Chemistry Department, Mansoura University Mansoura 35516 Egypt elkhawaga70s@mans.edu.eg.
Farid A BadriaDepartment of Pharmacognosy, Faculty of Pharmacy, Mansoura University Mansoura 35516 Egypt badri002@mans.edu.eg.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Metabolic diseases, including obesity, type 2 diabetes mellitus, and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), have prompted interest in identifying natural products capable of modulating digestive enzymes. This study comparatively evaluated the phytochemical composition, antioxidant activity, and digestive enzyme inhibitory activities of green tea (GT), black tea (BT), and green coffee (GC) extracts. Phytochemical screening, antioxidant assays (DPPH, ABTS, and SOD-like), and quantitative phenolic analysis indicated that GT contained the highest phenolic content and exhibited the greatest antioxidant activity, whereas GC showed the highest alkaloid content. Among the fractionated extracts, the ethyl acetate fraction of green tea (EtOAc fraction of GT) was selected for further investigation based on its phenolic content, pancreatic lipase inhibitory activity, and overall biological profile. HPLC analysis identified ferulic acid and chlorogenic acid as major constituents, together with syringic acid, resveratrol, myricetin, and rosmarinic acid. Both the crude BT extract and EtOAc fraction of GT exhibited α-amylase inhibitory activity comparable to that of quercetin. Kinetic analysis indicated competitive inhibition by the EtOAc fraction of GT (IC

Identifiers

PMID42899091
PMCPMC13678673

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.