ReviewNPJ biofilms and microbiomes2018
Towards standardized mechanical characterization of microbial biofilms: analysis and critical review.
Review in NPJ biofilms and microbiomes, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 68 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
68 citing papers in PubMed, 168 citations in OpenAlex.
- The biofilm detachment modes and mechanisms in porous media.Biodegradation · 2026Review
- Influence of particle size, shape, and magnetic properties on torque-driven biofilm removal using anisotropic magnetic particles.Nanoscale · 2026Article
- In Vitro Biofilm Formation on 3D-Printed, Milled, and Conventionally Manufactured Denture Base Resins.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Magnetic Field-Driven Strategies for Biofilm Disruption: From Iron Oxide Nanoparticles to Adaptive Swarms of Magnetic Microrobots.ACS nano · 2026Review
- Calcium chloride induces dose-dependent architectural, mechanical, and transcriptional remodeling inFrontiers in microbiology · 2026Article
- Natural Anti-Biofilm Agents: A Comprehensive Review and Future Perspectives.Current microbiology · 2025Review
- Unraveling novel insights into dual-species cariogenic biofilm formation on aged teeth: a comparative analysis on natural vs artificial bioengineered dentin models.Applied and environmental microbiology · 2025Article
- Interactions Between Active Matters and Endogenous Fields.Advanced materials (Deerfield Beach, Fla.) · 2025Review
- Catheter-Associated Urinary Tract Infections: Understanding the Interplay Between Bacterial Biofilm and Antimicrobial Resistance.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
- Synergistic Disruption of Foodborne Pathogen Biofilms by Oregano Essential Oil and Bacteriophage phiLLS: Atomic Force Microscopy Insights.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Mechanical Comparison ofACS biomaterials science & engineering · 2025Article
- Synthesis of Metal-Modified Nanocellulose as a Biofilm Analogue for Biofilm Mimicry in Biomedical and Environmental Applications.Biopolymers · 2025Article
- Adaptations of Gram-Negative and Gram-Positive Probiotic Bacteria in Engineered Living Materials.ACS biomaterials science & engineering · 2025Article
- Bacterial Biofilms-A Threat to Biliary Stents, Understanding Their Formation, Clinical Consequences and Management.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Review
- Liquid-bodied antibiofilm robot with switchable viscoelastic response for biofilm eradication on complex surface topographies.Science advances · 2025Article
- Rapid Stiffness Mapping in Soft Biologic Tissues With Micrometer Resolution Using Optical Multifrequency Time-Harmonic Elastography.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2025Article
- Article
- Sucrose-mediated formation and adhesion strength ofBiofilm · 2023Article
- Effect of a Depolymerase Encoded by Phage168 on a Carbapenem-ResistantPathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Dental unit waterline testing practices: an 11-Year retrospective study.BMC oral health · 2023Article
8 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Developing reliable anti-biofilm strategies or efficient biofilm-based bioprocesses strongly depends on having a clear understanding of the mechanisms underlying biofilm development, and knowledge of the relevant mechanical parameters describing microbial biofilm behavior. Many varied mechanical testing methods are available to assess these parameters. The mechanical properties thus identified can then be used to compare protocols such as antibiotic screening. However, the lack of standardization in both mechanical testing and the associated identification methods for a given microbiological goal remains a blind spot in the biofilm community. The pursuit of standardization is problematic, as biofilms are living structures, i.e., both complex and dynamic. Here, we review the main available methods for characterizing the mechanical properties of biofilms through the lens of the relationship linking experimental testing to the identification of mechanical parameters. We propose guidelines for characterizing biofilms according to microbiological objectives that will help the reader choose an appropriate test and a relevant identification method for measuring any given mechanical parameter. The use of a common methodology for the mechanical characterization of biofilms will enable reliable analysis and comparison of microbiological protocols needed for improvement of engineering process and screening.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.