Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21343458›Full record

ArticleAntimicrobial agents and chemotherapy2011

Efficacy of topically delivered moxifloxacin against wound infection by Pseudomonas aeruginosa and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus.

F Jacobsen, C Fisahn, M Sorkin, I Thiele, T Hirsch, I Stricker, T Klaassen, A Roemer, B Fugmann, L Steinstraesser

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 24% 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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 59 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Mechanisms of synergy in polymicrobial infections.Journal of microbiology (Seoul, Korea) · 2014
    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

10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

F JacobsenDepartment of Plastic Surgery, Burn Center, BG University Hospital Bergmannsheil, Ruhr University Bochum, Buerkle-de-la Camp Platz 1, 44789 Bochum, Germany.
C Fisahn
M Sorkin
I Thiele
T Hirsch
I Stricker
T Klaassen
A Roemer
B Fugmann
L Steinstraesser
BG University Hospital Bergmannsheil Bochum · DEBayer (Germany) · DERuhr University Bochum · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Wound infection is a common risk for patients with chronic nonhealing wounds, causing high morbidity and mortality. Currently, systemic antibiotic treatment is the therapy of choice, despite often leading to several side effects and the risk of an insufficient tissue penetration due to impaired blood supply. If systemically delivered, moxifloxacin penetrates well into inflammatory blister fluid, muscle, and subcutaneous adipose tissues and might therefore be a possible option for the topical treatment of skin and infected skin wounds. In this study, topical application of moxifloxacin was investigated in comparison to mupirocin, linezolid, and gentamicin using a porcine wound infection and a rat burn infection model. Both animal models were performed either by an inoculation with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) or Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Wound fluid, tissue, and blood samples were taken, and bacterial counts as well as the moxifloxacin concentration were determined for a 14-day follow-up. A histological comparison of the rat burn wound tissues was performed. Both strains were susceptible to moxifloxacin and gentamicin, whereas mupirocin and linezolid were effective only against MRSA. All antibiotics showed efficient reduction of bacterial counts, and except with MRSA, infected burn wounds reached bacterial counts below 10(5) CFU/g tissue. Additionally, moxifloxacin was observed to promote wound healing as determined by histologic analysis, while no induction of bacterial resistance was observed during the treatment period. The use of topical antibiotics for the treatment of infected wounds confers many benefits. Moxifloxacin is therefore an ideal candidate, due to its broad antibacterial spectrum, its high efficiency, and its potential to promote wound healing.

Indexed as

Administration, TopicalAnimalsAza CompoundsFluoroquinolonesMethicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureusMicrobial Sensitivity TestsMoxifloxacinPseudomonas aeruginosaQuinolinesRatsSwineWound InfectionAza CompoundsFluoroquinolonesMoxifloxacinQuinolines

Identifiers

PMID21343458
PMCPMC3088190
OpenAlexW2108964528

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.