ArticleScientific reports2025
Investigation of shockwave treatment for disruption of bacterial biofilm on tubular structure.
Article in Scientific reports, 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.
- Piperonylpiperazine Targets RhlI to Reduce Virulence and Potentiate EDTA Sensitivity inFoods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Biofilm Formation and Spore-Mediated Persistence of Clostridium perfringens in Meat and Poultry Processing Environments and Their Implications for Control Strategies.Journal of food science · 2026Review
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
Abstract
Biofilms, which are structures formed by microorganisms, are protected by extracellular polymeric substances (EPS) secreted by bacteria against external threats, including antibiotics. The current study aims to assess the effects of shockwave treatment combined with antibiotic therapy on Pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilms in tubular structures in vitro. The biofilms were formed on the inner surfaces of silicone tubes for three days under dynamic conditions. The biofilms were treated with shockwave treatment (120 pulses at 2 Hz), followed by exposure to 4 µg/ml ciprofloxacin for 6 h. Bacterial viability was assessed using colony-forming unit (CFU) and confocal laser scanning microscopy (CLSM) with SYTO9/PI staining, while biofilm detachment was evaluated via crystal violet (CV) staining and scanning electron microscopy (SEM). According to the SEM and CFU analysis, the shockwave and antibiotic-combined treatment significantly detached the biofilm, removing up to 97.5% of the surface area and decreased bacterial viability by 40%, compared to untreated control biofilms. The CV staining showed a significant reduction in biofilm biomass to an OD
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.