Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31052271›Full record

ReviewBiomedicines2019

Current Status of In Vitro Models and Assays for Susceptibility Testing for Wound Biofilm Infections.

Tania F Bahamondez-Canas, Lara A Heersema, Hugh D C Smyth

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Biomedicines, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 44 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
44citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.3field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

44 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 76 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Carbapenem-ResistantAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Tania F Bahamondez-CanasDivision of Molecular Pharmaceutics and Drug Delivery, College of Pharmacy, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78712, USA. tania.bahamondez@utexas.edu.
Lara A HeersemaDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Cockrell Scholl of Engineering, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78712, USA. Lheersema@utexas.edu.
Hugh D C SmythDivision of Molecular Pharmaceutics and Drug Delivery, College of Pharmacy, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78712, USA. hugh.smyth@austin.utexas.edu.
The University of Texas at Austin · US

Funding

National Science Foundation DGE-1610403
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Biofilm infections have gained recognition as an important therapeutic challenge in the last several decades due to their relationship with the chronicity of infectious diseases. Studies of novel therapeutic treatments targeting infections require the development and use of models to mimic the formation and characteristics of biofilms within host tissues. Due to the diversity of reported in vitro models and lack of consensus, this review aims to provide a summary of in vitro models currently used in research. In particular, we review the various reported in vitro models of

Indexed as

biofilmschronic infectionsin vitro modelsviability assays

Identifiers

PMID31052271
PMCPMC6630351
OpenAlexW2942723368

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.