Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34249887›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology2021

The Use of Zwitterionic Methylmethacrylat Coated Silicone Inhibits Bacterial Adhesion and Biofilm Formation of

Franziska Woitschach, Marlen Kloss, Karsten Schlodder, Anne Rabes, Caroline Mörke, Stefan Oschatz, Volkmar Senz, Alexander Borck, Niels Grabow, Emil Christian Reisinger and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 31% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Bacterial Adhesion and Biofilm Formation ofFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2022
    Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

11 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Franziska WoitschachDivision of Tropical Medicine and Infectious Diseases, Center of Internal Medicine II, University Medical Center Rostock, Rostock, Germany.
Marlen KlossDivision of Tropical Medicine and Infectious Diseases, Center of Internal Medicine II, University Medical Center Rostock, Rostock, Germany.
Karsten SchlodderBiotronik, Berlin, Germany.
Anne RabesDivision of Tropical Medicine and Infectious Diseases, Center of Internal Medicine II, University Medical Center Rostock, Rostock, Germany.
Caroline MörkeDivision of Cardiology, Center of Internal Medicine II, University Medical Center Rostock, Rostock, Germany.
Stefan OschatzInstitute for Biomedical Engineering, University Medical Center Rostock, Rostock, Germany.
Volkmar SenzInstitute for Biomedical Engineering, University Medical Center Rostock, Rostock, Germany.
Alexander BorckBiotronik, Berlin, Germany.
Niels GrabowInstitute for Biomedical Engineering, University Medical Center Rostock, Rostock, Germany.
Emil Christian ReisingerDivision of Tropical Medicine and Infectious Diseases, Center of Internal Medicine II, University Medical Center Rostock, Rostock, Germany.
Martina SombetzkiDivision of Tropical Medicine and Infectious Diseases, Center of Internal Medicine II, University Medical Center Rostock, Rostock, Germany.
University of Rostock · DEBiotronik (Germany) · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In recent decades, biofilm-associated infections have become a major problem in many medical fields, leading to a high burden on patients and enormous costs for the healthcare system. Microbial infestations are caused by opportunistic pathogens which often enter the incision already during implantation. In the subsequently formed biofilm bacteria are protected from the hosts immune system and antibiotic action. Therefore, the development of modified, anti-microbial implant materials displays an indispensable task. Thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU) represents the state-of-the-art material in implant manufacturing. Due to the constantly growing areas of application and the associated necessary adjustments, the optimization of these materials is essential. In the present study, modified liquid silicone rubber (LSR) surfaces were compared with two of the most commonly used TPUs in terms of bacterial colonization and biofilm formation. The tests were conducted with the clinically relevant bacterial strains

Indexed as

2-methacryloyloxyethyl phosphorylcholinebacterial inhibitionbiofilmbiomaterialscoating

Identifiers

PMID34249887
PMCPMC8267815
OpenAlexW3173631418

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.