Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33447812›Full record

ReviewBiofilm2020

Biofilm dispersion: The key to biofilm eradication or opening Pandora's box?

Jasper Wille, Tom Coenye

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Biofilm, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 80 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
80citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
6.3field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

80 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 150 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Understanding bacterial biofilms: From definition to treatment strategies.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2023
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Biofilm formation associated with calcium phosphate coating on implant metals.Journal of materials science. Materials in medicine · 2026
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. UnderstandingMicroorganisms · 2026
    Review
  20. Article

20 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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Jasper WilleLaboratory of Pharmaceutical Microbiology, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Tom CoenyeLaboratory of Pharmaceutical Microbiology, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Ghent University · BE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Biofilms are extremely difficult to eradicate due to their decreased antibiotic susceptibility. Inducing biofilm dispersion could be a potential strategy to help combat biofilm-related infections. Mechanisms of biofilm dispersion can basically be divided into two groups, i.e. active and passive dispersion. Active dispersion depends on a decrease in the intracellular c-di-GMP levels, leading to the production of enzymes that degrade the biofilm matrix and promote dispersion. In contrast, passive dispersion relies on triggers that directly release cells from the biofilm. In the present review, several active and passive dispersion strategies are discussed. In addition, the disadvantages and possible consequences of using dispersion as a treatment approach for biofilm-related infections are also reviewed.

Indexed as

Active biofilm dispersionc-di-GMPPassive dispersionPseudomonas aeruginosa

Identifiers

PMID33447812
PMCPMC7798462
OpenAlexW3034093786

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.