ArticleVeterinary dermatology2025
Comparison of the in vitro antibiofilm activities of otic cleansers against canine otitis externa pathogens.
Article in Veterinary dermatology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The dynamic interplay betweenFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2026Review
- Comparison of the in vitro antibiofilm activities of otic cleansers against canine otitis externa pathogens.Veterinary dermatology · 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundBiofilm production by canine otitis externa (COE) pathogens and resistance development to multiple antimicrobials are commonly reported problems in veterinary practice. The use of adjuvants to disrupt biofilms may be a viable adjunctive therapy. HYPOTHESIS/
objectivesTo compare the in vitro antibiofilm activity against COE pathogens of three otic cleansers: PHMB-EDTA (poly [hexamethylene] biguanide hydrochloride and disodium edetate), N-acetylcysteine (NAC) and Triz-EDTA. ANIMALS/ISOLATES: Thirty isolates of each species, including Staphylococcus pseudintermedius, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Streptococcus canis, Proteus mirabilis, Escherichia coli, and Malassezia pachydermatis, were collected from COE cases and stored at -80°C until tested. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Biofilm production was determined by Congo-red agar and microtitre plate-assay methods. Ten of the best biofilm-producing isolates per species were selected to determine minimum biofilm eradication concentration (MBEC) values. Minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) and minimum bactericidal concentration (MBC) values were determined to compare MBEC/MIC and MBEC/MBC.
resultsPHMB-EDTA possessed antibiofilm activity at low concentrations (MBEC range 3.9/2.3-500/300 μg/mL) against all tested COE pathogens. NAC demonstrated antibiofilm activity for all tested bacterial COE pathogens (MBEC range 4,925-19,700 μg/mL); however, most M. pachydermatis isolates exhibited MBEC values >20,000 μg/mL. Triz/EDTA at the highest concentration tested (3,025/19,520 μg/mL) did not demonstrate antibiofilm activity against most COE pathogens except for S. canis (94.5/610 μg/mL). CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: PHMB-EDTA had intrinsic antibiofilm activity at low concentrations against all COE pathogens. Therefore, it is likely to be a very effective adjuvant when used in conjunction with other antimicrobials for the treatment of COE caused by biofilm-producing pathogens.
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.