ReviewMicroorganisms2021
Evolution of Antibacterial Drug Screening Methods: Current Prospects for Mycobacteria.
Review in Microorganisms, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Lung organoids as a human system for Mycobacteria infection modeling and drug testing.The FEBS journal · 2026Review
- Therapeutic potential of Bacillus sonorensis PMC204 membrane vesicles against drug-resistant Mycobacterium tuberculosis.Medical microbiology and immunology · 2025Article
- Characterization of novel double-reporter strains ofMicrobiology spectrum · 2024Article
- Genetic diversity ofThe Egyptian journal of medical human genetics · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The increasing resistance of infectious agents to available drugs urges the continuous and rapid development of new and more efficient treatment options. This process, in turn, requires accurate and high-throughput techniques for antimicrobials' testing. Conventional methods of drug susceptibility testing (DST) are reliable and standardized by competent entities and have been thoroughly applied to a wide range of microorganisms. However, they require much manual work and time, especially in the case of slow-growing organisms, such as mycobacteria. Aiming at a better prediction of the clinical efficacy of new drugs, in vitro infection models have evolved to closely mimic the environment that microorganisms experience inside the host. Automated methods allow in vitro DST on a big scale, and they can integrate models that recreate the interactions that the bacteria establish with host cells in vivo. Nonetheless, they are expensive and require a high level of expertise, which makes them still not applicable to routine laboratory work. In this review, we discuss conventional DST methods and how they should be used as a first screen to select active compounds. We also highlight their limitations and how they can be overcome by more complex and sophisticated in vitro models that reflect the dynamics present in the host during infection. Special attention is given to mycobacteria, which are simultaneously difficult to treat and especially challenging to study in the context of DST.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.