ArticleBMC complementary medicine and therapies2026
Phytochemical profiling and bioactivity assessment of the ethanol extract of Lannea schimperi bark: antioxidant, antiradical, and antimicrobial potentials.
Article in BMC complementary medicine and therapies, 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.
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
The antioxidant, antiradical, and antimicrobial potentials of Lannea. schimperi (Hochst. ex A.Rich.) Engl. extracts are well documented. However, few studies have integrated these evaluations with phytochemical profiling. In this study, the antimicrobial activity, minimum inhibitory concentrations (MIC), antioxidant and antiradical activities, and phytochemical composition of L. schimperi bark extracts were examined. The inhibition zones ranged from 8.3 ± 0.5 mm to 18.3 ± 1.2 mm. The MIC values, determined spectrophotometrically, were as follows: Candida albicans (500 ± 0.0 µg/mL), Pseudomonas aeruginosa (250 ± 0.1 µg/mL), Bacillus subtilis (125.0 ± 18.4 µg/mL), Escherichia coli (125.0 ± 9.2 µg/mL), and Staphylococcus aureus (62.5 ± 18.4 µg/mL). The total phenolic and flavonoid contents were 256.94 ± 6.48 mg GAE/g and 29.22 ± 0.6 mg RE/g respectively. Antiradical activity ranged from 3.68 ± 0.4 to 13.86 ± 0.22 units per mg of extract, and from 320.2 ± 6 to 386.6 ± 23 units per gram of raw material. GC–MS analysis identified several saturated fatty acids and esters, including butanedioic acid (2.2%), n-tridecanoic acid (1.7%), bis(2-ethylhexyl) adipate (0.8%), n-pentadecanoic acid (3.9%), heptadecanoic acid (61.7%), 11-methyloctadecanoic acid (10.5%), nonadecanoic acid (7.9%), and 11-eicosenoic acid (1.4%). LC–MS analysis detected catechin (83.81%), piperine (92.93%), 9,10-dihydroxy-12Z-octadecenoic acid (83.19%), and galactonic acid (79.78%). Overall, the analysis of L. schimperi bark extracts highlights its significant antimicrobial, antioxidant, and phytochemical properties, supporting its potential as a natural therapeutic agent and further validate its traditional use in treating various ailments.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.