ReviewFolia microbiologica2023
Alternatives to animal models to study bacterial infections.
Review in Folia microbiologica, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- The ethical aspects of human organ-on-chip models: A mapping review.Stem cell reports · 2025Review
- Article
- Hydrogel Containing Biogenic Silver Nanoparticles andPharmaceutics · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Animal testing has made a significant and unequalled contribution to important discoveries and advancements in the fields of research, medicine, vaccine development, and drug discovery. Each year, millions of animals are sacrificed for various experiments, and this is an ongoing process. However, the debate on the ethical and sensible usage of animals in in vivo experimentation is equally important. The need to explore and adopt newer alternatives to animals so as to comply with the goal of reduce, refine, and replace needs attention. Besides the ever-increasing debate on ethical issues, animal research has additional drawbacks (need of trained labour, requirement of breeding area, lengthy protocols, high expenses, transport barriers, difficulty to extrapolate data from animals to humans, etc.). With this scenario, the present review has been framed to give a comprehensive insight into the possible alternative options worth exploring in this direction especially targeting replacements for animal models of bacterial infections. There have been some excellent reviews discussing on the alternate methods for replacing and reducing animals in drug research. However, reviews that discuss the replacements in the field of medical bacteriology with emphasis on animal bacterial infection models are purely limited. The present review discusses on the use of (a) non-mammalian models and (b) alternative systems such as microfluidic chip-based models and microdosing aiming to give a detailed insight into the prospects of these alternative platforms to reduce the number of animals being used in infection studies. This would enlighten the scientific community working in this direction to be well acquainted with the available new approaches and alternatives so that the 3R strategy can be successfully implemented in the field of antibacterial drug research and testing.
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.