Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26362142›Full record

ArticleLasers in medical science2015

The relative antimicrobial effect of blue 405 nm LED and blue 405 nm laser on methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in vitro.

Daniela Santos Masson-Meyers, Violet Vakunseh Bumah, Gabriel Biener, Valerica Raicu, Chukuka Samuel Enwemeka

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Lasers in medical science, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Exploring the role of impedance spectroscopy in assessing 405 nm laser-induced inactivation of saccharomyces cerevisiae.Photochemical & photobiological sciences : Official journal of the European Photochemistry Association and the European Society for Photobiology · 2024
    Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Under the spotlight: mechanisms of photobiomodulation concentrating on blue and green light.Photochemical & photobiological sciences : Official journal of the European Photochemistry Association and the European Society for Photobiology · 2019
    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

5 authors.

Daniela Santos Masson-MeyersCollege of Health Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, 2400 East Hartford Ave., Milwaukee, WI, 53211, USA.
Violet Vakunseh BumahCollege of Health Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, 2400 East Hartford Ave., Milwaukee, WI, 53211, USA.
Gabriel BienerDepartment of Physics, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, 1900 East Kenwood Blvd., Milwaukee, WI, 53211, USA.
Valerica RaicuDepartment of Physics, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, 1900 East Kenwood Blvd., Milwaukee, WI, 53211, USA.
Chukuka Samuel EnwemekaCollege of Health Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, 2400 East Hartford Ave., Milwaukee, WI, 53211, USA. enwemeka@gmail.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

It has long been argued that light from a laser diode is superior to light from a light-emitting diode (LED) in terms of its effect on biological tissues. In order to shed light on this ongoing debate, we compared the antimicrobial effect of light emitted from a 405-nm LED with that of a 405-nm laser on methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) at comparable fluences. We cultured 5 × 10(6) CFU/ml MRSA on tryptic soy agar and then irradiated culture plates once, twice, or thrice with either LED or laser light using 40, 54, 81, or 121 J/cm(2) fluence at 15-, 30-, or 240-min time interval between irradiation. Cultures were incubated immediately after irradiation at 37 °C for 24 h before imaging and counting remnant bacterial colonies. Regardless of the device used, LED or laser, irradiation at each fluence resulted in statistically significant bacterial growth suppression compared to non-irradiated controls (p < 0.0001). The antimicrobial effect of both light sources, LED and laser, was not statistically different at each fluence in 35 of the 36 experimental trials. Bacterial growth suppression achieved with either source of light increased with repeated irradiation, particularly at the 15- or 30-min treatment time interval. Thus, we conclude that the antimicrobial effect of 405-nm laser and 405-nm LED on MRSA is similar; neither has a superior antimicrobial effect when compared to the other.

Indexed as

LasersSemiconductorsBacterial LoadMethicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureusTime FactorsAntimicrobial therapyBlue lightLED versus laserLow-level light therapyMethicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureusPhototherapy

Identifiers

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.