Evidence mapPaperPMID 39409654Full record

ReviewPlants (Basel, Switzerland)2024

Methods for Determination of Antimicrobial Activity of Essential Oils In Vitro-A Review.

Radka Hulankova

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Plants (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing 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

38 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Chemical Characterization and Bioactive Potential ofMolecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Antifungal Effects ofPathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Synthesis, characterization, andFrontiers in chemistry · 2026
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

1 author.

Radka HulankovaDepartment of Hygiene and Technology of Food of Animal Origin and Gastronomy, Faculty of Veterinary Hygiene and Ecology, University of Veterinary Sciences Brno, 612 42 Brno, Czech Republic.ORCID 0000-0002-9716-5703

Funding

University of Veterinary Sciences Brno Institutional support
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Essential oils (EOs) have been gaining popularity in the past decades among researchers due to their potential to replace conventional chemicals used in the fight against pests, pathogenic and spoilage microbes, and oxidation processes. EOs are complex mixtures with many chemical components, the content of which depends on many factors-not just the plant genus, species, or subspecies, but also chemotype, locality, climatic conditions, phase of vegetation, method of extraction, and others. Due to this fact, there is still much to study, with antimicrobial effect being one of the key properties of EOs. There are many methods that have been frequently used by researchers for in vitro evaluation; however, although the research has been going on for decades, an internationally accepted standard is still missing. Most of methods are based on time-proven standards used for the testing of antibiotics. Due to the specific properties of EOs and their components, such as volatility and hydrophobicity, many modifications of these standard procedures have been adopted. The aim of this review is to describe the most common methods and their modifications for the testing of antimicrobial properties of EOs and to point out the most controversial variables which can potentially affect results of the assays.

Indexed as

agar diffusionagar dilutionantibacterialbiofilmbroth dilutionplant extractsvapor phase

Identifiers

PMID39409654
PMCPMC11478843

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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 Socratic graph.