ArticleInternational journal of food science2026
Phytochemical and In Vitro Antibacterial Assessment of Selected Wild Edible Plants From Southwestern Ethiopia.
Article in International journal of food science, 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.
- Phytochemical and In Vitro Antibacterial Assessment of Selected Wild Edible Plants From Southwestern Ethiopia.International journal of food science · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Wild edible plants (WEPs) are vital for food security and traditional medicine, particularly in resource-limited areas. Despite their potential, their use is constrained by a lack of scientific evidence. This study assesses the phytochemical properties and antibacterial activity of chosen WEPs from southwestern Ethiopia. Method: Observational and experimental study designs were utilized to identify and select WEPs through focus group discussions, key informant interviews, and multicriteria decision analysis. WEP samples were collected, dried, powdered, and extracted separately using methanol, ethanol, and acetone solvents. Physicochemical and qualitative phytochemical screenings were evaluated following standardized procedures. Antibacterial activity was evaluated using agar disk diffusion and broth dilution methods against Results: Among 22 medicinally important WEPs, Conclusion: The extracts of
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.