ArticlePloS one2024
Modified in-vitro AATCC-100 procedure to measure viable bacteria from wound dressings.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Antimicrobial Performance of a Novel Drug-Eluting Bioenvelope.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Chronic wounds are reoccurring healthcare problems in the United States and cost up to $50 billion annually. Improper wound care results in complications such as wound debridement, surgical amputation, and increased morbidity/ mortality due to opportunistic infections. To eliminate wound infections, many antimicrobial dressings are developed and submitted to FDA for evaluation. AATCC-100 is a standard method widely used to evaluate cloth wound dressings. This method, requires enrichment, followed by culturing to measure the concentration of culturable organisms; a caveat to this method could result in neglected viable but nonculturable (VBNC) bacteria and overestimate the antimicrobial properties of wound dressings. Therefore, the objectives of this study were to assess this accepted protocol with quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR), to measure time dependent antimicrobial efficacy of wound dressing, and to examine for potential viable bacteria but non-culturable as compared with traditional plating methods. The test organisms included opportunistic pathogens: Pseudomonas aeruginosa (ATCC 15692) and Staphylococcus aureus (ATCC 43300). To mimic a wound dressing environment, samples of commercially available wound dressings (McKesson Inc.) with silver ion (positive control) and dressings without silver ion (positive control) were assessed under sterile conditions. All samples were examined by the original protocol (the extended AATCC-100 method) and qRT-PCR. The expression of specific housekeeping genes was measured (proC for P. aeruginosa and 16s rRNA for S. aureus). Based on these tests, log reduction of experimental conditions was compared to identify time dependent and precise antimicrobial properties from wound dressing samples. These results showed antimicrobial properties of wound dressings diminished as incubation days are increased for both methods from day 1 PCR result of 4.31 ± 0.54 and day 1 plating result of 6.31 ± 3.04 to day 3 PCR result of 1.22 ± 0.97 and day 3 plating result of 5.89 ± 2.41. These results show that data from qRT-PCR generally produced lower standard deviation than that of culture methods, hence shown to be more precise. Complementary parallel analysis of samples using both methods better characterized antimicrobial properties of the tested samples.
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.