Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27994583›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in microbiology2016

Beyond Traditional Antimicrobials: A

Cin Kong, Su-Anne Eng, Mei-Perng Lim, Sheila Nathan

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in microbiology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 21% 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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 39 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. An insight on the powerful of bacterial quorum sensing inhibition.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2024
    Review
  5. Review
  6. AInsects · 2022
    Article
  7. Review
  8. Evaluation ofFrontiers in pharmacology · 2022
    Article
  9. Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021
    Article
  10. Enhanced Healthspan inFrontiers in pharmacology · 2021
    Article
  11. Review
  12. Frontiers in microbiology · 2021
    Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Antimicrobial and Antivirulence Action ofFrontiers in microbiology · 2020
    Article
  17. Review
  18. Rapid kill assessment of anMedChemComm · 2019
    Article
  19. 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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Cin KongSchool of Biosciences and Biotechnology, Faculty of Science and Technology, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia Bangi, Malaysia.
Su-Anne EngSchool of Biosciences and Biotechnology, Faculty of Science and Technology, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia Bangi, Malaysia.
Mei-Perng LimSchool of Biosciences and Biotechnology, Faculty of Science and Technology, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia Bangi, Malaysia.
Sheila NathanSchool of Biosciences and Biotechnology, Faculty of Science and Technology, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia Bangi, Malaysia.
National University of Malaysia · MY

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The spread of antibiotic resistance amongst bacterial pathogens has led to an urgent need for new antimicrobial compounds with novel modes of action that minimize the potential for drug resistance. To date, the development of new antimicrobial drugs is still lagging far behind the rising demand, partly owing to the absence of an effective screening platform. Over the last decade, the nematode

Indexed as

antimicrobial peptidesantimicrobialsanti-virulenceCaenorhabditis elegansimmunomodulator

Identifiers

PMID27994583
PMCPMC5133244
OpenAlexW2559126655

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.