Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33036373›Full record

ReviewMicroorganisms2020

Metal Oxide Nanoparticles Against Bacterial Biofilms: Perspectives and Limitations.

Liubov Shkodenko, Ilia Kassirov, Elena Koshel

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Microorganisms, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 94 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
94citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

94 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Functionality Enhancement of Pullulan-Based Composites for Food Packaging Applications.Comprehensive reviews in food science and food safety · 2026
    Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Investigating theRSC advances · 2025
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

34 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

3 authors.

Liubov ShkodenkoMicrobiology Lab of SCAMT Institute, ITMO University, Lomonosova st. 9, 191002 St. Petersburg, Russia.ORCID 0000-0002-4978-8535
Ilia KassirovMicrobiology Lab of SCAMT Institute, ITMO University, Lomonosova st. 9, 191002 St. Petersburg, Russia.ORCID 0000-0003-4736-2183
Elena KoshelMicrobiology Lab of SCAMT Institute, ITMO University, Lomonosova st. 9, 191002 St. Petersburg, Russia.ORCID 0000-0002-8957-5956

Funding

Russian Science Foundation 19-74-00125
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

At present, there is an urgent need in medicine and industry to develop new approaches to eliminate bacterial biofilms. Considering the low efficiency of classical approaches to biofilm eradication and the growing problem of antibiotic resistance, the introduction of nanomaterials may be a promising solution. Outstanding antimicrobial properties have been demonstrated by nanoparticles (NPs) of metal oxides and their nanocomposites. The review presents a comparative analysis of antibiofilm properties of various metal oxide NPs (primarily, CuO, Fe

Indexed as

antibacterial propertiesantibiofilm propertiesbiofilmmetal oxide nanoparticlesmutagenicitynanocomposites

Identifiers

PMID33036373
PMCPMC7601517

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.