Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39130740›Full record

ReviewAccess microbiology2024

Methods to assess antibacterial, antifungal and antiviral surfaces in relation to touch and droplet transfer: a review, gap-analysis and suggested approaches.

Alexander J Cunliffe, Peter Askew, Gillian Iredale, Abby Marchant, James Redfern

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Access microbiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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.

Alexander J CunliffeDepartment of Natural Sciences, Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester, M1 5GD, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-7099-0121
Peter AskewIMSL, Pale Lane, Hartley Whitney, Hants RG27 8DH, UK.
Gillian IredaleIMSL, Pale Lane, Hartley Whitney, Hants RG27 8DH, UK.
Abby MarchantIMSL, Pale Lane, Hartley Whitney, Hants RG27 8DH, UK.
James RedfernDepartment of Natural Sciences, Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester, M1 5GD, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-0958-683X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To help assess whether a potentially antimicrobial material, surface, or coating provides antimicrobial efficacy, a number of standardised test methods have been developed internationally. Ideally, these methods should generate data that supports the materials efficacy when deployed in the intended end-use application. These methods can be categorised based on their methodological approach such as suspension tests, agar plate/zone diffusion tests, surface inoculation tests, surface growth tests or surface adhesion tests. To support those interested in antimicrobial coating efficacy, this review brings together an exhaustive list of methods (for porous and non-porous materials), exploring the methodological and environmental parameters used to quantify antibacterial, antifungal, or antiviral activity. This analysis demonstrates that antimicrobial efficacy methods that test either fungi or viruses are generally lacking, whilst methods that test bacteria, fungi and viruses are not designed to simulate end-use/lack realistic conditions. As such, a number of applications for antimicrobial activity across medical touch screens, medical textiles and gloves and transport seat textiles are explored as example applications, providing guidance on modifications to existing methods that may better simulate the intended end-use of antimicrobial materials.

Indexed as

antimicrobial materialsantimicrobial surfacesgap analysisstandardised test methods

Identifiers

PMID39130740
PMCPMC11316596

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.