Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32246198›Full record

ReviewMedical microbiology and immunology2020

A review on impedimetric immunosensors for pathogen and biomarker detection.

J Leva-Bueno, Sally A Peyman, P A Millner

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Medical microbiology and immunology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 57 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
57citing papers in PubMed
9.8field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

57 citing papers in PubMed, 174 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Advances in methods for rapid detection of Staphylococcus aureus and methicillin-resistant S. aureus.Analytical sciences : the international journal of the Japan Society for Analytical Chemistry · 2025
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Recent developments in waterborne pathogen detection technologies.Environmental monitoring and assessment · 2025
    Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Tracking of Bacteriophage Predation onSensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  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.

J Leva-BuenoSchool of Biomedical Sciences, Faculty of Biological Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9JT, England, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3859-986X
Sally A PeymanMolecular and Nanoscale Physics Group, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9JS, England, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1600-5100
P A MillnerSchool of Biomedical Sciences, Faculty of Biological Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9JT, England, UK. P.A.Millner@leeds.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4813-4302
University of Leeds · GB

Funding

H2020 Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions 765042
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Since the discovery of antibiotics in the first quarter of the twentieth century, their use has been the principal approach to treat bacterial infection. Modernized medicine such as cancer therapy, organ transplantation or advanced major surgeries require effective antibiotics to manage bacterial infections. However, the irresponsible use of antibiotics along with the lack of development has led to the emergence of antimicrobial resistance which is considered a serious global threat due to the rise of multidrug-resistant bacteria (Wang et al. in Antibiotic resistance: a rundown of a global crisis, pp. 1645-1658, 2018). Currently employed diagnostics techniques are microscopy, colony counting, ELISA, PCR, RT-PCR, surface-enhanced Raman scattering and others. These techniques provide satisfactory selectivity and sensitivity (Joung et al. in Sens Actuators B Chem 161:824-831, 2012). Nevertheless, they demand specialized personnel and expensive and sophisticated machinery which can be labour-intensive and time-consuming, (Malvano et al. in Sensors (Switzerland) 18:1-11, 2018; Mantzila et al. in Anal Chem 80:1169-1175, 2008). To get around these problems, new technologies such as biosensing and lab-on-a-chip devices have emerged in the last two decades. Impedimetric immunosensors function by applying electrochemical impedance spectroscopy to a biosensor platform using antibodies or other affinity proteins such as Affimers (Tiede et al. in Elife 6(c):1-35, 2017) or other binding proteins (Weiss et al. in Electrochim Acta 50:4248-4256, 2005) as bioreceptors, which provide excellent sensitivity and selectivity. Pre-enrichment steps are not required and this allows miniaturization and low-cost. In this review different types of impedimetric immunosensors are reported according to the type of electrode and their base layer materials, either self-assembled monolayers or polymeric layers, composition and functionalization for different types of bacteria, viruses, fungi and disease biomarkers. Additionally, novel protein scaffolds, both antibody derived and non-antibody derived, used to specifically target the analyte are considered.

Indexed as

BiomarkersElectrochemical TechniquesAnimalsBacteriaBiosensing TechniquesClinical Laboratory TechniquesDielectric SpectroscopyElectric ImpedanceElectrodesFungiHumansImmunoassayVirusesBiomarkersBacteriaBiomarkerBiosensorElectrochemical impedance spectroscopy (EIS)ImmunosensorVirus

Identifiers

PMID32246198
PMCPMC7248053
OpenAlexW3014587231

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.