Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34135567›Full record

ArticleClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2021

Influence of Contact Lens Materials and Cleaning Procedures on Bacterial Adhesion and Biofilm Formation.

Auemphon Mordmuang, Lunla Udomwech, Kulwadee Karnjana

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. 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.

Auemphon MordmuangSchool of Medicine, Walailak University, Nakhon Si Thammarat, Thailand.ORCID 0000-0002-3979-9599
Lunla UdomwechSchool of Medicine, Walailak University, Nakhon Si Thammarat, Thailand.ORCID 0000-0002-5695-2954
Kulwadee KarnjanaSchool of Medicine, Walailak University, Nakhon Si Thammarat, Thailand.ORCID 0000-0003-1708-9980
Walailak University · TH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe present study aimed to compare the existing soft contact lens (CL) materials regarding their influence on bacterial biofilm formation and adhesion susceptibility. Then, the study was designed to investigate the effectiveness of various disinfecting solutions and evaluate the ability of cleaning regimens in terms of anti-bacterial adhesion and biofilm removal on different soft CL materials.

methodsBacterial biofilm formation on CLs was evaluated by biomass assay. Adhesion assay and standard plate count were carried out at time-interval periods within 24 h. Various CL disinfecting procedures were assessed for their efficacy to remove biofilm and reduce bacterial adhesion. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) was performed for the morphological assessment of bacterial biofilm.

resultsPrinted hydroxyethyl methacrylate (HEMA) CLs significantly demonstrated more biofilm staining and bacterial attachment when compared with non-printed HEMA CLs, while the Filcon II 3 and Nesofilcon A CLs possessed less biofilm biomass and adherent cells.

conclusionHEMA-based soft CLs may facilitate bacterial biofilm formation and adhesion capability. The two-step system was the most effective regimen for biofilm removal, where the soaking period in the disinfecting solution of the no-rub regimen should last more than 6 h to remove pre-formed biofilm.

Indexed as

bacterial adhesionbiofilm formationdisinfectionlens materialssoft contact lens

Identifiers

PMID34135567
PMCPMC8197623
OpenAlexW3168086559

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.