Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28971093›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in chemistry2017

Antimicrobial Peptides in Biomedical Device Manufacturing.

Martijn Riool, Anna de Breij, Jan W Drijfhout, Peter H Nibbering, Sebastian A J Zaat

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in chemistry, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 81 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
81citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
13.1field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

81 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 186 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. The dental implant surface: a review of the past, present and future.Journal of materials science. Materials in medicine · 2026
    Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Conjugation of CRAMPInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2024
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

21 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Martijn RioolDepartment of Medical Microbiology, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam Infection and Immunity Institute, University of AmsterdamAmsterdam, Netherlands.
Anna de BreijDepartment of Infectious Diseases, Leiden University Medical CenterLeiden, Netherlands.
Jan W DrijfhoutDepartment of Immunohematology and Blood Transfusion, Leiden University Medical CenterLeiden, Netherlands.
Peter H NibberingDepartment of Infectious Diseases, Leiden University Medical CenterLeiden, Netherlands.
Sebastian A J ZaatDepartment of Medical Microbiology, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam Infection and Immunity Institute, University of AmsterdamAmsterdam, Netherlands.
Leiden University Medical Center · NLAcademic Medical Center · NLUniversity of Amsterdam · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Over the past decades the use of medical devices, such as catheters, artificial heart valves, prosthetic joints, and other implants, has grown significantly. Despite continuous improvements in device design, surgical procedures, and wound care, biomaterial-associated infections (BAI) are still a major problem in modern medicine. Conventional antibiotic treatment often fails due to the low levels of antibiotic at the site of infection. The presence of biofilms on the biomaterial and/or the multidrug-resistant phenotype of the bacteria further impair the efficacy of antibiotic treatment. Removal of the biomaterial is then the last option to control the infection. Clearly, there is a pressing need for alternative strategies to prevent and treat BAI. Synthetic antimicrobial peptides (AMPs) are considered promising candidates as they are active against a broad spectrum of (antibiotic-resistant) planktonic bacteria and biofilms. Moreover, bacteria are less likely to develop resistance to these rapidly-acting peptides. In this review we highlight the four main strategies, three of which applying AMPs, in biomedical device manufacturing to prevent BAI. The first involves modification of the physicochemical characteristics of the surface of implants. Immobilization of AMPs on surfaces of medical devices with a variety of chemical techniques is essential in the second strategy. The main disadvantage of these two strategies relates to the limited antibacterial effect in the tissue surrounding the implant. This limitation is addressed by the third strategy that releases AMPs from a coating in a controlled fashion. Lastly, AMPs can be integrated in the design and manufacturing of additively manufactured/3D-printed implants, owing to the physicochemical characteristics of the implant material and the versatile manufacturing technologies compatible with antimicrobials incorporation. These novel technologies utilizing AMPs will contribute to development of novel and safe antimicrobial medical devices, reducing complications and associated costs of device infection.

Indexed as

antimicrobial peptideantimicrobial resistancebiofilmbiomaterial-associated infectiondevice manufacturingimplant

Identifiers

PMID28971093
PMCPMC5609632
OpenAlexW2750226384

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.