Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23455656›Full record

ArticleLasers in medical science2014

Study of photodynamic therapy in the control of isolated microorganisms from infected wounds--an in vitro study.

Denise Pereira de Lima Carvalho, Juliana Guerra Pinto, Camila Di Paula Costa Sorge, Fabiana Regis Rodrigues Benedito, Sonia Khouri, Juliana Ferreira Strixino

Abstract readEvaluation Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Lasers in medical science, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 19% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
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

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Denise Pereira de Lima CarvalhoLaboratory of Photodynamic Therapy, LEVB-Institute of Research & Development-Univap, University of Vale do Paraíba/Faculty of Health Sciences/IP&D, Av. Shishima Hifumi, 2911, Urbanova São José dos Campos, 12244, São Paulo, Brazil.
Juliana Guerra Pinto
Camila Di Paula Costa Sorge
Fabiana Regis Rodrigues Benedito
Sonia Khouri
Juliana Ferreira Strixino
Universidade do Vale do Paraíba · BR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The effective treatment of infected wounds continues to be a serious challenge, mainly due to the rise of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Photodynamic therapy (PDT) refers to the topical or systemic administration of a non-toxic, photosensitizing agent (PS), followed by irradiation with visible light of a suitable wavelength. The possibility of applying the PDT locally is what makes it so favorable to the treatment of infected wounds. The goal of this study was to evaluate the action of the PDT in the inactivation in vitro of microorganisms coming from infected wounds, using methylene blue (MB) and photodithazine (PDZ) as the PS and comparing the efficacy of these two compounds for PDT on bacteria. For the application of PDT, isolated microorganisms identified from material collected from wounds were suspended in a saline solution containing 10(6) viable cells/ml. Each isolated microorganism was submitted to PDT with MB and with PDZ in accordance with the following treatment groups: N/T--no treatment; T1--PDT with PDZ; T2--PDT with MB; T3--irradiation without PS; T4--treatment with PDZ without light; and T5--treatment with MB without light. As a light source, an LED-based device was used (Biopdi/Irrad-Lead 660), composed of 54 LEDs, each with 70 mW of power in the 660 nm region of the electromagnetic spectrum. Each tray of 96 wells was irradiated with an intensity of 25 mW/cm(2) and a dose of light of 50 J/cm(3) for 33 min. All the tests were made in duplicate. It was then concluded that the PDT with PDZ was capable of inhibiting the growth of gram-positive bacteria samples, however it did not have the same effect on gram-negative bacteria, which showed growth greater than 100,000 CFU; the PDT with MB showed an effectiveness on gram-positive as well as gram-negative bacteria, for it was able to inhibit bacterial growth in both cases.

Indexed as

PhotochemotherapyBacteriaEnterobacterEscherichia coliGlucosamineHumansIn Vitro TechniquesMethylene BluePhotosensitizing AgentsProteus mirabilisPseudomonas aeruginosaStaphylococcusStaphylococcus aureusWound InfectionGlucosamineMethylene BlueN-methylglucosaminePhotosensitizing Agents

Identifiers

PMID23455656
OpenAlexW2110610762

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.