Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31468316›Full record

ReviewDrugs2019

Novel Treatment Strategies for Biofilm-Based Infections.

Claudia Vuotto, Gianfranco Donelli

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Drugs, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing 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

37 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Carmofur Exhibits Antimicrobial Activity AgainstAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. ACS applied materials & interfaces · 2024
    Article
  19. Antimicrobial polymer-loaded hydrogels for the topical treatment of multidrug-resistant wound biofilm infections.Journal of controlled release : official journal of the Controlled Release Society · 2023
    Article
  20. Review
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.

Claudia VuottoMicrobial Biofilm Laboratory, IRCCS Fondazione Santa Lucia, Via Ardeatina 306, Rome, Italy.
Gianfranco DonelliMicrobial Biofilm Laboratory, IRCCS Fondazione Santa Lucia, Via Ardeatina 306, Rome, Italy. g.donelli@hsantalucia.it.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Biofilm-growing cells show an enhanced antimicrobial tolerance with respect to the same cells growing in a free-floating way. This is due to physical or chemical diffusion barriers and increased transfer of resistance markers. Thus, tissue- and medical device-related biofilms can be considered among the leading sources of antibiotic treatment failure, causing many of the deadliest chronic infections afflicting humans nowadays. To find a satisfying way to counteract this major health threat, a great effort has been made in recent years to develop safe, effective and fast-acting anti-biofilm strategies. In this review, we summarise and evaluate the most promising tools and molecules that have demonstrated their ability to modulate steps involved in biofilm formation or to disperse pre-formed biofilms, without conferring evolutionary pressure to microorganisms.

Indexed as

Anti-Bacterial AgentsBiofilmsHumansInfectionsAnti-Bacterial Agents

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.