Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37125396›Full record

ArticleBiofilm2023

In vitro study to assess modulation of

Marta Díaz-Navarro, Álvaro Irigoyen Von-Sierakowski, María Palomo, Pilar Escribano, Jesús Guinea, Almudena Burillo, Alicia Galar, Patricia Muñoz, María Guembe

Erratum issuedOpen access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Biofilm, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 21% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. New insights in the role ofFrontiers in microbiology · 2025
    Article
  4. Advancements in vaginal microbiota,Microbial cell (Graz, Austria) · 2025
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Marta Díaz-NavarroDepartment of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, Hospital General Universitario Gregorio Marañón, Madrid, Spain.
Álvaro Irigoyen Von-SierakowskiDepartment of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, Hospital General Universitario Gregorio Marañón, Madrid, Spain.
María PalomoDepartment of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, Hospital General Universitario Gregorio Marañón, Madrid, Spain.
Pilar EscribanoDepartment of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, Hospital General Universitario Gregorio Marañón, Madrid, Spain.
Jesús GuineaDepartment of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, Hospital General Universitario Gregorio Marañón, Madrid, Spain.
Almudena BurilloDepartment of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, Hospital General Universitario Gregorio Marañón, Madrid, Spain.
Alicia GalarDepartment of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, Hospital General Universitario Gregorio Marañón, Madrid, Spain.
Patricia MuñozDepartment of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, Hospital General Universitario Gregorio Marañón, Madrid, Spain.
María GuembeDepartment of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, Hospital General Universitario Gregorio Marañón, Madrid, Spain.
Universidad Complutense de Madrid · ESHospital General Universitario Gregorio Marañón · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Vulvovaginal candidiasis (VVC) is caused by biofilm formation and epithelial invasion. In addition, Methods: We prospectively collected CA and EC isolates from vaginal swabs over 6 months. We selected positive cultures with both CA and EC (cases) and a comparator group with either CA or EC (controls). We analyzed overall biomass production and metabolic activity in single cultures and in co-cultures based on staining assays, confocal laser scanning microscopy (CLSM) and scanning electron microscopy (SEM) to assess biofilm occupation. We also analyzed clinical manifestations. Results: We cultured 455 samples, 16 (3.5%) of which had CA and EC (cases); only CA or EC (controls) was detected, respectively, in 72 (15.8%) and 98 (21.5%). Biomass production and metabolic activity were significantly more pronounced in co-cultures in both groups. CLSM and SEM, on the other hand, showed the biofilm of each species to be significantly reduced when they were cultured together, with higher values in CA (percentage biofilm reduction: CA, 95.8% vs. EC, 36.2%, p < 0.001). There were no clinically significant differences between co-infected patients and patients infected only by Conclusion: Ours is the first study assessing co-cultures of CA and EC in a large collection of samples. We observed that coinfection of CA and EC was unusual (3.5%) and promoted high biomass, whereas microscopy enabled us to detect a reduction in biofilm production when microorganisms were co-cultured. No differences in symptoms were observed.

Indexed as

BiofilmCandida albicansCoinfectionConfocal laser scanning microscopyEscherichia coli

Identifiers

PMID37125396
PMCPMC10130766
OpenAlexW4362579231

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.