Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17430699›Full record

ArticleCurrent infectious disease reports2007

Bacterial biofilm in upper respiratory tract infections.

David P Morris

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Current infectious disease reports, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 20% of its field
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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 37 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Bacterial biofilms in the human body: prevalence and impacts on health and disease.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2023
    Review
  4. Pathogenesis of pneumonia and acute lung injury.Clinical science (London, England : 1979) · 2022
    Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Virus-induced secondary bacterial infection: a concise review.Therapeutics and clinical risk management · 2015
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

David P MorrisDivision of Otolaryngology, Dalhousie University, Room 3037, 3rd Floor Dickson Building, University Avenue, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada. dp.morris@dal.ca
Dalhousie University · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The upper respiratory tract is of easy access to pathogens, and although it has evolved a number of defensive barriers to avoid invasion, acute and chronic infections of the ears, nose, and throat are common and present a huge challenge to the healthcare system. Though most infections are viral, mild, and self-limiting, bacterial infection is responsible for considerable morbidity and has potential for life-threatening sequelae. Biofilms form when free-floating planktonic organisms adhere to a surface. Within a polymicrobial, biofilm organisms interact, exchanging metabolites, enzymes, and genetic material. The colony is protected, allowing bacteria to thrive in otherwise unfavorable conditions. A role for the biofilm in upper respiratory tract infections has been proposed because infections often run a persistent, remitting course, samples are sometimes difficult to culture, and resistance to medical management is common. This review presents recently published evidence of bacterial biofilms in established upper respiratory tract infections.

Identifiers

PMID17430699
OpenAlexW1966127816

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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 OpenQuestion graph.