ArticleBMC veterinary research2025
Antimicrobial activity of ear cleanser products against biofilm and planktonic phases of Staphylococcus spp. and Pseudomonas spp. isolated from canine skin and ear infections.
Article in BMC veterinary research, 2025. 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.
- Treatment of canine otitis externa: a randomized, double-blinded, clinical field study comparing the hydrocortisone aceponate monotherapy to a multi-agent reference product.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundStaphylococcus spp., and Pseudomonas spp., including multidrug resistant staphylococci are frequent isolates from canine otitis externa and atopic dermatitis. The ability of these bacteria to form biofilms significantly contributes to the chronic nature of otitis. To manage microbial overgrowth, ear cleanser products are commonly used. It is important therefore, to measure their antibiofilm effects. In this study, six ear cleansers (Epiotic
resultsEpiotic (SIS and Advanced), Cleanaural and Peptivet showed high antibiofilm activity, with Otifree and Sonotix showing moderate to low antibiofilm activity. Notably, Otifree was significantly less effective at inhibiting methicillin-resistant S. aureus compared to methicillin-sensitive strains. P. aeruginosa biofilms were less effectively disrupted by some ear cleansers, and the MIC results indicated that less diluted solutions were required to inhibit this isolate compared to the staphylococcal species. Differences in the antibacterial effects between Epiotic SIS and Epiotic Advanced solutions could also be detected from the MIC assays suggesting differences in formulations can affect antimicrobial efficacy.
conclusionsCommonly used canine ear cleanser products showed variable activity against multidrug resistant and sensitive Staphylococcus spp. and P. aeruginosa isolates in both biofilm and planktonic phases. The observed differences between bacterial strains and cleanser formulations highlight the importance of selecting appropriate products for targeted microbial control, which can lead to more effective management of chronic otitis externa and atopic dermatitis in dogs.
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.