Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31528123›Full record

ArticleBiological procedures online2019

MBEC Versus MBIC: the Lack of Differentiation between Biofilm Reducing and Inhibitory Effects as a Current Problem in Biofilm Methodology.

Lara Thieme, Anita Hartung, Kristina Tramm, Mareike Klinger-Strobel, Klaus D Jandt, Oliwia Makarewicz, Mathias W Pletz

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Biological procedures online, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 84 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
84citing papers in PubMed
3.8field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

84 citing papers in PubMed, 128 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. UnderstandingMicroorganisms · 2026
    Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Asiatic Acid Disrupts the Biofilm Virulence ofInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2025
    Article
  19. UropathogenicInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2025
    Article
  20. Article

24 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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Lara Thieme1Institute for Infectious Diseases and Infection Control, Jena University Hospital, Am Klinikum 1, 07747 Jena, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-5850-0417
Anita Hartung1Institute for Infectious Diseases and Infection Control, Jena University Hospital, Am Klinikum 1, 07747 Jena, Germany.
Kristina Tramm1Institute for Infectious Diseases and Infection Control, Jena University Hospital, Am Klinikum 1, 07747 Jena, Germany.
Mareike Klinger-Strobel1Institute for Infectious Diseases and Infection Control, Jena University Hospital, Am Klinikum 1, 07747 Jena, Germany.
Klaus D Jandt2Otto Schott Institute of Materials Research, Friedrich Schiller University Jena, Löbdergraben 32, Jena, 07743 Germany.
Oliwia Makarewicz1Institute for Infectious Diseases and Infection Control, Jena University Hospital, Am Klinikum 1, 07747 Jena, Germany.
Mathias W Pletz1Institute for Infectious Diseases and Infection Control, Jena University Hospital, Am Klinikum 1, 07747 Jena, Germany.
Jena University Hospital · DESchott (Germany) · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBiofilms are communities of aggregated, matrix-embedded microbial cells showing a high tolerance to an in principle adequate antibiotic therapy, often resulting in treatment failure. A major challenge in the management of biofilm-associated infections is the development of adequate, standardized biofilm susceptibility testing assays that are clinically meaningful, i.e. that their results correlate with treatment outcome. Different biofilm susceptibility endpoint parameters like the minimal biofilm eradication concentration (MBEC) or the minimal biofilm inhibitory concentration (MBIC) have been suggested as a guide for treatment of biofilm-associated infections, however with inconsistent perception and use among biofilm researchers, leading to confusion and contradictions among different anti-biofilm component studies and clinical trials.

findingsEvaluation of anti-biofilm effects is mostly based on the untreated reference growth control biofilm measured at the same endpoint as the treated biofilm, neglecting the possible change of the untreated reference biofilm from the time point of pre-antimicrobial exposure to the measured endpoint. In this commentary, we point out the importance of individual quantification of mature, established biofilms before antimicrobial treatment for each biofilm model in order to draw conclusions on the measured biofilm effect size, i.e. biofilm reducing (MBEC) or biofilm inhibitory (MBIC) effects.

conclusionThe assessment of pre-treatment biofilms contributes to a standardized use of biofilm susceptibility endpoint parameters, which is urgently needed to improve the clinical validity of future anti-biofilm assays.

Indexed as

Biofilm-associated infectionsBiofilm susceptibility endpoint parametersBiofilm susceptibility testingMBECMBIC

Identifiers

PMID31528123
PMCPMC6743098
OpenAlexW2973098004

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.