ArticleTurkish journal of pharmaceutical sciences2020
Article in Turkish journal of pharmaceutical sciences, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Ceragenins and Ceragenin-Based Core-Shell Nanosystems as New Antibacterial Agents against Gram-Negative Rods Causing Nosocomial Infections.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Incorporating Ceragenins into Coatings Protects Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter Lines against Pathogen Colonization for Multiple Weeks.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Article
- Opportunities for Nanomedicine inAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
- Bactericidal Properties of Rod-, Peanut-, and Star-Shaped Gold Nanoparticles Coated with Ceragenin CSA-131 against Multidrug-Resistant Bacterial Strains.Pharmaceutics · 2021Article
- New β-Lactam Antibiotics and Ceragenins - A Study to Assess Their Potential in Treatment of Infections Caused by Multidrug-Resistant Strains ofInfection and drug resistance · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesMATERIALS AND
methodsMinimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) and minimum bactericidal concentrations (MBCs) were determined by broth dilution method.
resultsThe MIC
conclusionCSA-131 and CSA-138 appear to be good candidates for CRPA treatment. However, the lack of stability, efficacy, and pharmacokinetic properties of CSA requires further research in the future
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.