Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28683556›Full record

ArticleBiointerphases2017

Water contact angle is not a good predictor of biological responses to materials.

Morgan R Alexander, Paul Williams

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Biointerphases, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed
–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

21 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Catheter mechanoprophylaxis againstMicrobiology (Reading, England) · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

2 authors.

Morgan R AlexanderSchool of Pharmacy, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom.
Paul WilliamsSchool of Life Sciences, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom.

Funding

Wellcome Trust 103882Wellcome Trust 103884
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Often the view is expressed that water contact angle (WCA) or other wettability/surface energy measurements made on a material surface can be used to predict cellular attachment to materials, e.g., bacteria attach to hydrophobic surfaces. In this article, the authors present a perspective emerging from their work that has failed to find relationships between WCA and microbial and stem cell attachment within large diversity material libraries and compare with the literature concluding that such simple rules are (unfortunately) wholly inadequate to explain cell-material interactions.

Indexed as

Surface TensionWettabilityBacterial AdhesionBiocompatible MaterialsCell AdhesionWaterBiocompatible MaterialsWater

Identifiers

PMID28683556
PMCPMC7613460

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.