Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 267

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 26 of the 26 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Phytochemical Screening and Antimicrobial Activity Evaluation of Selected Medicinal Plants in Ethiopia

Open access
Dubale, Sileshi, Kebebe, Dereje, Zeynudin, Ahmed, Abdissa, Negera, Suleman, Sultan·2023·Journal of Experimental Pharmacology

Abstract

Background: The emergence and spread of resistant microbes continue to be a major public health concern. Effective treatment alternatives, particularly from traditionally used medicinal plants, are needed. Objective: The main objective of this study was to conduct phytochemical screening and antimicrobial activity evaluation of selected traditionally used medicinal plants in Ethiopia. Methods: The ethnomedicinal use value frequency index (FI) was used to select twelve medicinal plants. Phytochemical classes of compounds were screened using different standard methods. Anti-microbial activities of plant extracts were evaluated against Klebsiella pneumoniae, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Staphylococcus aureus, Escherichia coli , and Candida albicans . Minimum inhibitory concentrations were measured using the broth micro-dilution method. The data were analyzed using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 21.0 and the findings were presented descriptively and using non parametric one-way ANOVA analysis (Kruskal–Wallis/Ddunn’s test). Results: The phytochemical constituents identified were flavonoids, alkaloids, glycosides, phenols, saponins, steroids, and terpenoids, with flavonoids, alkaloids, and phenols being the most abundant. The crude extracts and chloroform fractions of the extracts showed an activity against the tested strains. The crude extract of Thalictrum rhynchocarpum Quart.-Dill. and A.Rich root demonstrated superior activity against all the tested strains with the lowest minimum inhibitory concentrations of 0.48 μg/mL against Staphylococcus aureus and Escherichia coli ; 0.98 μg/mL against Klebsiella pneumoniae, Pseudomonas aeruginosa; and 3.90 μg/mL against Candida albicans , which are even better than the reference drug, gentamicin and clotrimazole. Conclusion: The majority of evaluated medicinal plants demonstrated remarkable activity against tested microbial strains, which can be attributed to the presence of secondary metabolites of different classes of compounds. The finding provided scientific evidence for the use of these traditionally used medicinal plants. Keywords: traditional medicine, medicinal plants, phytochemical screening, antimicrobial activity, minimum inhibitory concentration

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2147/jep.s379805

Cites

26 of 26 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 26 references

Metadata

Authors
Dubale, S., Kebebe, D., Zeynudin, A., Abdissa, N., & Suleman, S.
Venue
Journal of Experimental Pharmacology
Published
2023-02
Volume
Volume 15
Pages
51-62
ISSN
1179-1454 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4319788168
Cited by
267
References
26
FWCI
34.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Phytochemical Screening and Antimicrobial Activity Evaluation of Selected Medicinal Plants in Ethiopia. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2147/jep.s379805
The paper
Dubale, S., Kebebe, D., Zeynudin, A., Abdissa, N., & Suleman, S. (2023). Phytochemical Screening and Antimicrobial Activity Evaluation of Selected Medicinal Plants in Ethiopia. Journal of Experimental Pharmacology. https://doi.org/10.2147/jep.s379805

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.