Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35047910›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in medical technology2021

Precision Design of Antimicrobial Surfaces.

Declan C Mullen, Xing Wan, Timo M Takala, Per E Saris, V M Moreira

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in medical technology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

5 authors.

Declan C MullenStrathclyde Institute of Pharmacy and Biomedical Sciences, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, United Kingdom.
Xing WanDepartment of Microbiology, Faculty of Agriculture and Forestry, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.
Timo M TakalaDepartment of Microbiology, Faculty of Agriculture and Forestry, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.
Per E SarisDepartment of Microbiology, Faculty of Agriculture and Forestry, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.
V M MoreiraStrathclyde Institute of Pharmacy and Biomedical Sciences, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The overall expectation from an antimicrobial surface has been high considering the need for efficiency in preventing the attachment and growth of pathogenic microbes, durability, safety to both humans and environment as well as cost-effectiveness. To date, antimicrobial surface design has been mostly conducted liberally, without rigorous consideration of establishing robust structure-activity relationships for each design strategy or of the use intended for a specific antimicrobial material. However, the variability among the domain bacteria, which is the most diverse of all, alongside the highly dynamic nature of the bacteria-surface interface have taught us that the likelihood of finding universal antimicrobial surfaces is low. In this perspective we discuss some of the current hurdles faced by research in this promising field, emphasizing the relevance and complexity of probing the bacteria-surface interface, and explain why we feel it would greatly benefit from a more streamlined

Indexed as

antimicrobialbacteriabiofilminterfacesurface

Identifiers

PMID35047910
PMCPMC8757849

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.