Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40214088›Full record

ReviewAPMIS : acta pathologica, microbiologica, et immunologica Scandinavica2025

Simulated Media for Mimicking the Human Environment In Vitro.

Bethan Roberts, Ida Thaarup

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in APMIS : acta pathologica, microbiologica, et immunologica Scandinavica, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

2 authors.

Bethan RobertsBiodiscovery Institute, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8708-8014
Ida ThaarupCosterton Biofilm Centre, University of Copenhagen, København, Denmark.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9004-0978

Funding

Magle Chemoswed A/B
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The phrase 'All models are wrong but some are useful' spoken by George Box in 1976 is as relevant today as ever. Modern research relies heavily on models and the use of in vitro models is the cornerstone of developing novel treatments for various infectious diseases. Simple growth media have been, and still are, heavily used when performing research involving biofilms and infectious pathogens. However, using modern technologies, large discrepancies are now being revealed between bacteria grown in simple media versus those grown in more authentic media. These discrepancies can lead to significant differences in bacterial tolerances, growth patterns, biofilm formation abilities, etc. Hence, if the aim is to replicate the in vivo situation in a laboratory setting, the creation of realistic simulated bodily fluids should be prioritised. This paper presents a range of simulated human fluids from various body sites where infections often occur. Bacterial behaviour has been evaluated in all these media and is often compared to a simple growth medium counterpart. In all instances, significant differences are observed which might lead to important discrepancies, particularly in potential treatment efficiency. We hope this may serve as inspiration for any researcher doing in vitro work, attempting to mimic reality.

Indexed as

BacteriaBody FluidsCulture MediaBiofilmsHumansCulture Mediahuman infectionsin vitro modelssimulated media

Identifiers

PMID40214088
PMCPMC11987485

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.