Submited on: 13 May 2012 04:41:18 PM GMT
Published on: 14 May 2012 12:20:35 PM GMT
 
Compelling data; mediocre presentation
Posted by Mr. Cade Lowry on 01 Nov 2017 10:01:51 PM GMT Reviewed by Interested Peers

  • What are the main claims of the paper and how important are they?

    Roots of C. macrophylla have analgesic and anti-inflammatory potential, comparable to that of standards. Aqueous extracts from the roots have the most potent analgesic activity, whereas ethanol is have a superior anti-inflammatory spectrum.

    These claims are important because C. Macrophylla’s anti inflammatory properties have yet to be explored.


  • Are these claims novel? If not, please specify papers that weaken the claims to the originality of this one.

    These claims are important because unlike C. Macrophylla’s traditional uses, its anti inflammatory properties have yet to be explored. 


  • Are the claims properly placed in the context of the previous literature?

    Yes. 


  • Do the results support the claims? If not, what other evidence is required?

    The results do supports the claims of the author(s).  Other information such as flavonoid isolation would have boldened the authors claims, though. 


  • If a protocol is provided, for example for a randomized controlled trial, are there any important deviations from it? If so, have the authors explained adequately why the deviations occurred?

    N/a


  • Is the methodology valid? Does the paper offer enough details of its methodology that its experiments or its analyses could be reproduced?

    Yes.  Although,  ethics committee clearance for animal model use is not mentioned. 


  • Would any other experiments or additional information improve the paper? How much better would the paper be if this extra work was done, and how difficult would such work be to do, or to provide?

    The author(s) mention how the anti-inflammatory effects may be in part due to presence of flavonoids. Confirmation of this suspicion with isolation of these supposed flavonoids would have been a great improvement to the paper.

    Also, statistical analysis of the data would have made the paper appear more thorough.


  • Is this paper outstanding in its discipline? (For example, would you like to see this work presented in a seminar at your hospital or university? Do you feel these results need to be incorporated in your next general lecture on the subject?) If yes, what makes it outstanding? If not, why not?

    I think it is compelling data, certainly.  On the other hand, the presentation/organization of this paper is mediocre and could be greatly improved on.


  • Other Comments:

    8. The paper would be much stronger if there was a results and discussion section, respectively, as opposed to a combined section. I feel like the paper doesn’t discuss much in the way of tying all of the results together to reinforce the claims made in the abstract. With that addition, the paper would have been much improved.

    References within the paper such as REE and RAE had me scouring the paper for what those were an acronyms for. I feel it should have been clarified immediately after the first time each of these acronyms were used in the paper, and not hidden within the fine print of the figures.

    There are a number of typos/grammatical errors that could be easily fixed. For example,
    -Introduction: “Keeping this views in mind…” Should be simply, “With this in mind,”
    -Results/Dicussion: “Several flavonoids isolated from medicinal plant..” should be “plants”

  • Competing interests:
    .
  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    No
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    No
  • References:
    None
  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    Student at the University of Kentucky College of Pharmacy

  • How to cite:  Lowry C .Compelling data; mediocre presentation[Review of the article ' Assessment of Anti-Inflammatory and Analgesic Activities of Callicarpa Macrophylla Vahl. Roots Extracts ' by Khan S].WebmedCentral 2014;8(11):WMCRW003381
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 

  • What are the main claims of the paper and how important are they?

    Roots of C. Macrophyla have analgesic and anti-inflammatory potential comparable to that of standards. 


  • Are these claims novel? If not, please specify papers that weaken the claims to the originality of this one.

    Yes


  • Are the claims properly placed in the context of the previous literature?

    Yes


  • Do the results support the claims? If not, what other evidence is required?

    Yes


  • If a protocol is provided, for example for a randomized controlled trial, are there any important deviations from it? If so, have the authors explained adequately why the deviations occurred?

    No


  • Is the methodology valid? Does the paper offer enough details of its methodology that its experiments or its analyses could be reproduced?

    Yes


  • Would any other experiments or additional information improve the paper? How much better would the paper be if this extra work was done, and how difficult would such work be to do, or to provide?

    I would like to have seen a more concluding statement that reiterates the main claims of the paper, which would help the reader really understand the main points of the article.  I would also have appreciated a more in-depth analysis during the results and discussion of why flavonoids could be the reason why ethanolic, aqueous extract has analgesic activity.  


  • Is this paper outstanding in its discipline? (For example, would you like to see this work presented in a seminar at your hospital or university? Do you feel these results need to be incorporated in your next general lecture on the subject?) If yes, what makes it outstanding? If not, why not?

    Yes, because it is investigating novel areas of use of the roots of the C. macrophylla plant. Traditional research indicate uses as anti-pyretic, anti-ulcer, and gastric stimulants, and here they investigate the analgesic and anti-inflammatory potential of this root. 


  • Other Comments:

    N/A

  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    No
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    No
  • References:
    None
  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    Undergraduate student at the University of Kentucky, pursuing a degree in chemical engineering with a certificate in biopharmaceuticals

  • How to cite:  Huddleston K .Assessment of Anti-Inflammatory and Analgesic Activities of Callicarpa Macrophlla Vahl. Roots Extracts[Review of the article ' Assessment of Anti-Inflammatory and Analgesic Activities of Callicarpa Macrophylla Vahl. Roots Extracts ' by Khan S].WebmedCentral 2014;5(12):WMCRW003162
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 

  • What are the main claims of the paper and how important are they?

    There are promising analgesic and anti-inflammatory effects from the roots of Callicarpa macrophylla Vahl. as demonstrated by an animal model.


  • Are these claims novel? If not, please specify papers that weaken the claims to the originality of this one.

    Yes.


  • Are the claims properly placed in the context of the previous literature?

    Yes.


  • Do the results support the claims? If not, what other evidence is required?

    Yes.


  • If a protocol is provided, for example for a randomized controlled trial, are there any important deviations from it? If so, have the authors explained adequately why the deviations occurred?

    No.


  • Is the methodology valid? Does the paper offer enough details of its methodology that its experiments or its analyses could be reproduced?

    Yes. 

    The description of the paw edema method could have been further clarified. In addition, an explanation for the selection of mercury used in the paw edema method could have been provided along with the safety precautions taken.


  • Would any other experiments or additional information improve the paper? How much better would the paper be if this extra work was done, and how difficult would such work be to do, or to provide?

    No.


  • Is this paper outstanding in its discipline? (For example, would you like to see this work presented in a seminar at your hospital or university? Do you feel these results need to be incorporated in your next general lecture on the subject?) If yes, what makes it outstanding? If not, why not?

    With minor improvements, this would be an outstanding paper. The paper was very easy to read and presented some interesting results.


  • Other Comments:

    Very good, transparent study. The article was very straightforward and well organized. There were a few grammatical and spelling errors that may be the result of translation. Error bars should be added to the figures not just within the tables. 

     

    The majority of the article was very good about not directly referring to the tail withdrawal as pain. It is important not to directly refer to these kinds of tests as a measurement of pain. The figure captions could have been rephrased to follow the written work. It is not always viewed as acceptable to use “pain” to describe the response of an animal to a stimulus.

     

    Comments on formatting that could just be due to the current way the article is presented.
    REE and RAE should be explicitly defined within the main paper. It was defined in the Illustrations that followed the References. The table and figure title placement did not appear to follow the conventional organization.

     

    In addition to providing the historical reasons for pursuing plant derivative studies and the traditional uses of C. macrophylla, there could have been more specific background provided on the two kinds of roots and their corresponding components.
    A more in-depth discussion and potential reasons for the results should have been incorporated. An explanation of the differences seen in acqueous and alcohol roots and their effectiveness, along with their mechanisms of action, could have also been included. A stronger conclusion could have been incorporated that summarized the key findings and potentially referred to future directions.

  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    No
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    No
  • References:

    .

  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    I have reviewed some of the current literature in this area. I am an undergraduate student enrolled in a biopharmaceutical program and have been provided with information as to how to review an article.

  • How to cite:  Ice A .Review of: Assessment of Anti-Inflammatory and Analgesic Activities of Callicarpa Macrophylla Vahl. Roots Extracts[Review of the article ' Assessment of Anti-Inflammatory and Analgesic Activities of Callicarpa Macrophylla Vahl. Roots Extracts ' by Khan S].WebmedCentral 2014;5(12):WMCRW003159
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 

  • What are the main claims of the paper and how important are they?

    The roots extracts of C.macrophylla exhibit analgesic and anti-inflammatory activities in vivo.


  • Are these claims novel? If not, please specify papers that weaken the claims to the originality of this one.

    Yes


  • Are the claims properly placed in the context of the previous literature?

    Yes


  • Do the results support the claims? If not, what other evidence is required?

    Yes


  • If a protocol is provided, for example for a randomized controlled trial, are there any important deviations from it? If so, have the authors explained adequately why the deviations occurred?

    No


  • Is the methodology valid? Does the paper offer enough details of its methodology that its experiments or its analyses could be reproduced?

    Yes. However, it is better to supply more details.


  • Would any other experiments or additional information improve the paper? How much better would the paper be if this extra work was done, and how difficult would such work be to do, or to provide?

    It is valuble to further investigate the active constituents, evaluate their activities as well as clarify the action mechanisms.


  • Is this paper outstanding in its discipline? (For example, would you like to see this work presented in a seminar at your hospital or university? Do you feel these results need to be incorporated in your next general lecture on the subject?) If yes, what makes it outstanding? If not, why not?

    It is valuble to further investigate the active constituents, evaluate their activities as well as clarify the action mechanisms.


  • Other Comments:

    No.

  • Competing interests:
    No.
  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    No
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    No
  • References:
  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    None.

  • How to cite:  Qiu L .Assessment of Anti-Inflammatory and Analgesic Activities of Callicarpa Macrophylla Vahl. Roots Extracts[Review of the article ' Assessment of Anti-Inflammatory and Analgesic Activities of Callicarpa Macrophylla Vahl. Roots Extracts ' by Khan S].WebmedCentral 2014;3(7):WMCRW002090
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 

  • What are the main claims of the paper and how important are they?

    Callicarpa Macrophylla Vahl. roots extracts induction of anti-Inflammatory and analgesic activities in vivo


  • Are these claims novel? If not, please specify papers that weaken the claims to the originality of this one.

    Yes


  • Are the claims properly placed in the context of the previous literature?

    Yes


  • Do the results support the claims? If not, what other evidence is required?

    Yes


  • If a protocol is provided, for example for a randomized controlled trial, are there any important deviations from it? If so, have the authors explained adequately why the deviations occurred?

    No


  • Is the methodology valid? Does the paper offer enough details of its methodology that its experiments or its analyses could be reproduced?

    Yes


  • Would any other experiments or additional information improve the paper? How much better would the paper be if this extra work was done, and how difficult would such work be to do, or to provide?

    It would be interesting to isolate phytochemicals responsible for these activities


  • Is this paper outstanding in its discipline? (For example, would you like to see this work presented in a seminar at your hospital or university? Do you feel these results need to be incorporated in your next general lecture on the subject?) If yes, what makes it outstanding? If not, why not?

    No


  • Other Comments:

    It would be interesting to isolate phytochemicals responsible for these activities. Description of methos used for the phytochemical analysis should be provided

  • Competing interests:
    No
  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    No
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    Yes
  • References:

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=search&db=pubmed&term=Lopez-Lazaro%20M%5Bau%5D&dispmax=100

  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:
    None
  • How to cite:  Lopez-Lazaro M .Review on the Assessment of Anti-Inflammatory and Analgesic Activities of Callicarpa Macrophylla Vahl. Roots Extracts [Review of the article ' Assessment of Anti-Inflammatory and Analgesic Activities of Callicarpa Macrophylla Vahl. Roots Extracts ' by Khan S].WebmedCentral 2014;3(7):WMCRW002070
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 

  • What are the main claims of the paper and how important are they?

    Analgesics and anti-inflammatory agents are always an important subject for reserch. Though there are numerous agents available but adverse effects associated with those agents always leads the reserchers to do experiments to find newer agents with less side effects. In this context this is a nice article.

     


  • Are these claims novel? If not, please specify papers that weaken the claims to the originality of this one.

    Yes


  • Are the claims properly placed in the context of the previous literature?

    Yes


  • Do the results support the claims? If not, what other evidence is required?

    Yes


  • If a protocol is provided, for example for a randomized controlled trial, are there any important deviations from it? If so, have the authors explained adequately why the deviations occurred?

    NA


  • Is the methodology valid? Does the paper offer enough details of its methodology that its experiments or its analyses could be reproduced?

    In methodology the animal strain, the ethical clearance data, from where the animals were procured, should be clearly mentioned. which is missing in this article.


  • Would any other experiments or additional information improve the paper? How much better would the paper be if this extra work was done, and how difficult would such work be to do, or to provide?

    The tables should have been given with proper footnotes. In the discussion part a figure is mentioned but it is missing in the article, it shuild be inserted there. As per me it is not a difficult work.


  • Is this paper outstanding in its discipline? (For example, would you like to see this work presented in a seminar at your hospital or university? Do you feel these results need to be incorporated in your next general lecture on the subject?) If yes, what makes it outstanding? If not, why not?

    It is otherwise a nice paper, if the suggestions given above were incorporated this could be a nice scintific presentation. Congrtulations.


  • Other Comments:

    No

  • Competing interests:
    No
  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    No
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    Yes
  • References:

    S Pradhan, Y.Roja Ramani, J P Behera.Evaluation of antinocecepyive effect of Racecadotril and its interaction with morphine in wistar rats. OJP:2008;5:1

  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:
    None
  • How to cite:  Pradhan S .Assessment of Anti-Inflammatory and Analgesic Activities of Callicarpa Macrophylla Vahl. Roots Extracts .[Review of the article ' Assessment of Anti-Inflammatory and Analgesic Activities of Callicarpa Macrophylla Vahl. Roots Extracts ' by Khan S].WebmedCentral 2014;3(7):WMCRW002063
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 

  • What are the main claims of the paper and how important are they?

    Roots of C. macrophylla have analgesic and anti-inflammatory potential, comparable to that of standards.


  • Are these claims novel? If not, please specify papers that weaken the claims to the originality of this one.

    No, the dose is too high than standard


  • Are the claims properly placed in the context of the previous literature?

    Not sure


  • Do the results support the claims? If not, what other evidence is required?

    Yes


  • If a protocol is provided, for example for a randomized controlled trial, are there any important deviations from it? If so, have the authors explained adequately why the deviations occurred?

    No


  • Is the methodology valid? Does the paper offer enough details of its methodology that its experiments or its analyses could be reproduced?

    Yes


  • Would any other experiments or additional information improve the paper? How much better would the paper be if this extra work was done, and how difficult would such work be to do, or to provide?

    Statistical analysis, please give significant different at chart bar


  • Is this paper outstanding in its discipline? (For example, would you like to see this work presented in a seminar at your hospital or university? Do you feel these results need to be incorporated in your next general lecture on the subject?) If yes, what makes it outstanding? If not, why not?

    No, the dose are to high for human


  • Other Comments:

    N/A

  • Competing interests:
    No
  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    No
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    No
  • References:
    None
  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    Pharmacology, Toxicology

  • How to cite:  Anonymous.Assessment of Anti-Inflammatory and Analgesic Activities of Callicarpa Macrophylla Vahl. Roots Extracts [Review of the article ' Assessment of Anti-Inflammatory and Analgesic Activities of Callicarpa Macrophylla Vahl. Roots Extracts ' by Khan S].WebmedCentral 2014;3(7):WMCRW002062
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 

  • What are the main claims of the paper and how important are they?

    Roots of C. macrophylla have analgesic and anti-inflammatory potential and are comparable to that of standard drugs.


  • Are these claims novel? If not, please specify papers that weaken the claims to the originality of this one.

    C. macrophylla has been already reported of its traditional uses as anti-pyretic, analgesic, anti-ulcer, gastric stimulants. So calims are novel. As work involves roots of the plant.


  • Are the claims properly placed in the context of the previous literature?

    Yes


  • Do the results support the claims? If not, what other evidence is required?

    Results do support the claim


  • If a protocol is provided, for example for a randomized controlled trial, are there any important deviations from it? If so, have the authors explained adequately why the deviations occurred?

    NA


  • Is the methodology valid? Does the paper offer enough details of its methodology that its experiments or its analyses could be reproduced?

    Yes


  • Would any other experiments or additional information improve the paper? How much better would the paper be if this extra work was done, and how difficult would such work be to do, or to provide?

    Information about animal ethics commitee, the permission or registration number has not been provided.


  • Is this paper outstanding in its discipline? (For example, would you like to see this work presented in a seminar at your hospital or university? Do you feel these results need to be incorporated in your next general lecture on the subject?) If yes, what makes it outstanding? If not, why not?

    The presentation is average


  • Other Comments:

    Mechanisms of flavonoids providing antiinflamatory property and analgesic property could have been given. On providing mechanisms the article would clearly represent how the plant extract exerts its action.

  • Competing interests:
    No
  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    No
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    Yes
  • References:

    Saiprasanna Behera, M.S. Rajeev, Chayan Banerjee. Anti-inflammatory activity of Pongamia pinnata hydro-alcoholic leaf extract in wistar albino rats. International Journal of Institutional Pharmacy and Life Sciences 2(3): May-June 2012 Saiprasanna Behera, Rakesh Kumar Dey, Durba Bhattacharya. Analgesic activity of hydro-alcoholic extract of Ocimum canum in wistar albino rats. International Journal of Institutional Pharmacy and Life Sciences 2(3): May-June 2012

  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:
    None
  • How to cite:  Behera S .Assessment of Anti-Inflammatory and Analgesic Activities of Callicarpa Macrophylla Vahl. Roots Extracts[Review of the article ' Assessment of Anti-Inflammatory and Analgesic Activities of Callicarpa Macrophylla Vahl. Roots Extracts ' by Khan S].WebmedCentral 2014;3(7):WMCRW002052
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 

  • What are the main claims of the paper and how important are they?

    It claims anti-inflammatory and analgesic effects of Callicarpa Macrophylla Vahl. Roots Extracts.


  • Are these claims novel? If not, please specify papers that weaken the claims to the originality of this one.

    Amatya, (1993). Anti-inflammatory activity of Callicarpa microphylla. Journal of the Nepal Chemical Society 12, 39--41;
    Aggarwal, et al 2011., Identification of Novel Anti-inflammatory Agents from Ayurvedic Medicine for Prevention of Chronic Diseases
    Curr Drug Targets. 2011 October 1; 12(11): 1595–1653


  • Are the claims properly placed in the context of the previous literature?

    Yes


  • Do the results support the claims? If not, what other evidence is required?

    Yes


  • If a protocol is provided, for example for a randomized controlled trial, are there any important deviations from it? If so, have the authors explained adequately why the deviations occurred?

    No deviations were mentioned in the methods. 


  • Is the methodology valid? Does the paper offer enough details of its methodology that its experiments or its analyses could be reproduced?

    The methodology is fairly okay. However, the detais of the methodology are not complete.


  • Would any other experiments or additional information improve the paper? How much better would the paper be if this extra work was done, and how difficult would such work be to do, or to provide?

    Further experiments would improve the paper, the paper would then be much better for it. Extra experiments needed are simple to be done.


  • Is this paper outstanding in its discipline? (For example, would you like to see this work presented in a seminar at your hospital or university? Do you feel these results need to be incorporated in your next general lecture on the subject?) If yes, what makes it outstanding? If not, why not?

    It is not outstanding in its discipline. Because the results presented here are too elementary and adds very little to the current knowledge.


  • Other Comments:

    There are several issue with correct choice of words and grammars. for example 'concentrations' were stated in the abstract section in place of 'dose'. there is a mix up in the plant collection section: authors state that leaves were collected, dried  and processed in place of roots. And that 'plants' were collected, but only one plant is being reported. The anti-inflammatory model used was refernced. Were the rats paw dipped directly into mercuty? If yes, is this not dangerous to do, even for the researchers. The Authors also stated that 2 way ANOVA was used for analysi, it should have been one way in this regard. Was preliminary phytochemical test done on the extracts? The results were not properly disscused.

  • Competing interests:
    No
  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    No
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    No
  • References:
  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    Yes

  • How to cite:  Balogun S O.Assessment of Anti-Inflammatory and Analgesic Activities of Callicarpa Macrophylla Vahl. Roots Extracts[Review of the article ' Assessment of Anti-Inflammatory and Analgesic Activities of Callicarpa Macrophylla Vahl. Roots Extracts ' by Khan S].WebmedCentral 2014;3(7):WMCRW002049
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 

1 Is the subject of the article within the scope of the subject category? Yes
2 Are the interpretations / conclusions sound and justified by the data? Yes
3 Is this a new and original contribution? Yes
4 Does this paper exemplify an awareness of other research on the topic? Yes
5 Are structure and length satisfactory? Yes
6 Can you suggest brief additions or amendments or an introductory statement that will increase the value of this paper for an international audience? No
7 Can you suggest any reductions in the paper, or deletions of parts? No
8 Is the quality of the diction satisfactory? Yes
9 Are the illustrations and tables necessary and acceptable? Yes
10 Are the references adequate and are they all necessary? Yes
11 Are the keywords and abstract or summary informative? Yes
  • Other Comments:

    A fairly good research work done by a group of people

  • Competing interests:
    No
  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    Yes
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    No
  • References:
    None
  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    Some work on coconut endocarp was done for biological activity

  • How to cite:  G V B.Assessment of Anti-Inflammatory and Analgesic Activities of Callicarpa Macrophylla Vahl. Roots Extracts [Review of the article ' Assessment of Anti-Inflammatory and Analgesic Activities of Callicarpa Macrophylla Vahl. Roots Extracts ' by Khan S].WebmedCentral 2014;3(5):WMCRW001833
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 
Comments
Posted by Dr. Fabricio Rios-Santos on 18 May 2012 01:00:55 PM GMT

1 Is the subject of the article within the scope of the subject category? Yes
2 Are the interpretations / conclusions sound and justified by the data? Partly
3 Is this a new and original contribution? Yes
4 Does this paper exemplify an awareness of other research on the topic? Yes
5 Are structure and length satisfactory? Yes
6 Can you suggest brief additions or amendments or an introductory statement that will increase the value of this paper for an international audience? Yes
7 Can you suggest any reductions in the paper, or deletions of parts? No
8 Is the quality of the diction satisfactory? Yes
9 Are the illustrations and tables necessary and acceptable? Yes
10 Are the references adequate and are they all necessary? Yes
11 Are the keywords and abstract or summary informative? Yes
  • Other Comments:

    Dear Dr. Yadav, congratullations for your work.

    Where is the figures quoted? They are easier to visualize the results. For research on animals is requested authorization for any ethics committee in animal experimentation? If so, it will be worthwhile to mention. What methods were used in preliminary phytochemical screening? Congratulations on your work. There are some mistakes in words, like "photochemical".Tell us in future artciles the new assays (like formalin test, and others) the pathways involved as mechanisms of action of this extract. India has great studies in natural products.

  • Competing interests:
    No.
  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    No
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    Yes
  • References:
    Bieski, I.G.C. ; Rios-Santos, Fabricio ; Oliveira, R.M. ; Espinosa, M.M. ; Macedo, M. ; Albuquerque, U. ; MARTINS, Domingos Tabajara de Oliveira . Ethnopharmacology of medicinal plants of the Pantanal region (Mato Grosso, Brazil). Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine (Print), v. 2012, p. xx-xx, 2011.
  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    Pos-doc.

  • How to cite:  Rios-Santos F .Comments[Review of the article ' Assessment of Anti-Inflammatory and Analgesic Activities of Callicarpa Macrophylla Vahl. Roots Extracts ' by Khan S].WebmedCentral 2014;3(5):WMCRW001827
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse