ArticleFrontiers in microbiology2025
Efficacy prediction of bacteriophage-antibiotic combinations against
Article in Frontiers in microbiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Phage-antibiotic combinations (PAC) may be effective in eradicating clinical, mostly biofilm-associated, infections. As the efficacy of PAC largely depends on the phage and antibiotic used, such combinations should be screened before their clinical application. Unfortunately, testing the efficacy of PAC on mature biofilms is laborious. This study aimed to assess whether the effects of PAC on biofilm-encased bacteria can be predicted by testing their effects on planktonic counterparts. Methods: Methicillin-sensitive Results: The results for planktonic bacteria showed antagonism between ISP and rifampicin or gentamicin, synergism between ISP and ciprofloxacin, clindamycin, or flucloxacillin, and lack of interaction between ISP and daptomycin. Similarly, ISP combined with rifampicin or gentamicin displayed antagonism on biofilm-encased MSSA, whereas ISP and ciprofloxacin, clindamycin, flucloxacillin, or high-dose daptomycin induced synergy. Notably, two to three consecutive daily exposures to PAC were necessary to reduce biofilm-encased MSSA maximally. Testing PAC on planktonic bacteria predicted antagonistic effects on biofilms (area under the curve (AUC) = 0.95), but did not predict synergistic effects (AUC = 0.30) after 3 days of exposure to the respective phage-antibiotic concentrations. Discussion: Together, PAC testing on planktonic bacteria provides a valuable first-line screening tool for clinicians treating biofilm-associated infections.
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.