ReviewHernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery2018
A critical review of the in vitro and in vivo models for the evaluation of anti-infective meshes.
Review in Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Efficacy and Safety Outcomes of Bacteriophage Therapy for Resistant Bacterial Infections.Cureus · 2026Review
- Are late hernia mesh complications linked to Staphylococci biofilms?Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2022Observational
- The impact of bacterial contamination on the host response towards fully absorbable poly-4-hydroxybutyrate and nonabsorbable polypropylene pelvic floor implants.Materials today. Bio · 2022Article
- Nanohole-boosted electron transport between nanomaterials and bacteria as a concept for nano-bio interactions.Nature communications · 2021Article
- Efficacy of antimicrobial agents delivered to hernia meshes using an adaptable thermo-responsive hyaluronic acid-based coating.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2020Article
- Biofilms and effective porosity of hernia mesh: are they silent assassins?Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundInfectious complications following mesh implantation for abdominal wall repair appear in 0.7 up to 26.6% of hernia repairs and can have a detrimental impact for the patient. To prevent or to treat mesh-related infection, the scientific community is currently developing a veritable arsenal of antibacterial meshes. The numerous and increasing reports published every year describing new technologies indicate a clear clinical need, and an academic interest in solving this problem. Nevertheless, to really appreciate, to challenge, to compare and to optimize the antibacterial properties of next generation meshes, it is important to know which models are available and to understand them. PURPOSE: We proposed for the first time, a complete overview focusing only on the in vitro and in vivo models which have been employed specifically in the field of antibacterial meshes for hernia repair. RESULTS AND
conclusionFrom this investigation, it is clear that there has been vast progress and breadth in new technologies and models to test them. However, it also shows that standardization or adoption of a more restricted number of models would improve comparability and be a benefit to the field of study.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30168006What 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.