Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34718634›Full record

ReviewJournal of industrial microbiology & biotechnology2022

Assessing the risk of resistance to cationic biocides incorporating realism-based and biophysical approaches.

Laura J Fox, Paul P Kelly, Gavin J Humphreys, Thomas A Waigh, Jian R Lu, Andrew J McBain

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of industrial microbiology & biotechnology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
–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

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Highly Effective Biocides againstACS infectious diseases · 2024
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. UnravelingMicrobiology spectrum · 2023
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. 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

6 authors.

Laura J FoxBiological Physics, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Schuster Building, Faculty of Science and Engineering, University of Manchester, M13 9PL, UK.
Paul P KellyDivision of Pharmacy and Optometry, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PT, UK.
Gavin J HumphreysDivision of Pharmacy and Optometry, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PT, UK.
Thomas A WaighBiological Physics, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Schuster Building, Faculty of Science and Engineering, University of Manchester, M13 9PL, UK.
Jian R LuBiological Physics, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Schuster Building, Faculty of Science and Engineering, University of Manchester, M13 9PL, UK.
Andrew J McBainDivision of Pharmacy and Optometry, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PT, UK.

Funding

ArxadaInnovate UKUKRI KTP11592
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The control of microorganisms is a key objective in disease prevention and in medical, industrial, domestic, and food-production environments. Whilst the effectiveness of biocides in these contexts is well-evidenced, debate continues about the resistance risks associated with their use. This has driven an increased regulatory burden, which in turn could result in a reduction of both the deployment of current biocides and the development of new compounds and formulas. Efforts to balance risk and benefit are therefore of critical importance and should be underpinned by realistic methods and a multi-disciplinary approach, and through objective and critical analyses of the literature. The current literature on this topic can be difficult to navigate. Much of the evidence for potential issues of resistance generation by biocides is based on either correlation analysis of isolated bacteria, where reports of treatment failure are generally uncommon, or laboratory studies that do not necessarily represent real biocide applications. This is complicated by inconsistencies in the definition of the term resistance. Similar uncertainties also apply to cross-resistance between biocides and antibiotics. Risk assessment studies that can better inform practice are required. The resulting knowledge can be utilised by multiple stakeholders including those tasked with new product development, regulatory authorities, clinical practitioners, and the public. This review considers current evidence for resistance and cross-resistance and outlines efforts to increase realism in risk assessment. This is done in the background of the discussion of the mode of application of biocides and the demonstrable benefits as well as the potential risks.

Indexed as

DisinfectantsAnti-Bacterial AgentsBacteriaBiophysicsDrug Resistance, BacterialMicrobial Sensitivity TestsAnti-Bacterial AgentsDisinfectantsAMRAntibiotic resistanceBiocideBiophysicsCross-resistanceMembrane-targetedRealism-basedResistanceRisk assessment

Identifiers

PMID34718634
PMCPMC9113109

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.