Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41920586›Full record

ArticleMicrobiology (Reading, England)2026

Identifying markers of biofilm formation on medical-grade stainless steel as a representative medical device material.

Gregory G Anderson, Sravya Kovvali, Francis W Dang, Ryan M Singh, Apoorva Vishwakarma, Jon W Weeks, Ruchi Pandey

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Microbiology (Reading, England), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

7 authors.

Gregory G AndersonDivision of Biology, Chemistry, and Materials Science, Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH), Office of Science and Engineering Laboratories, US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Silver Spring, MD 20993, USA.
Sravya KovvaliDivision of Biology, Chemistry, and Materials Science, Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH), Office of Science and Engineering Laboratories, US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Silver Spring, MD 20993, USA.
Francis W DangDivision of Biology, Chemistry, and Materials Science, Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH), Office of Science and Engineering Laboratories, US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Silver Spring, MD 20993, USA.
Ryan M SinghDivision of Biology, Chemistry, and Materials Science, Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH), Office of Science and Engineering Laboratories, US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Silver Spring, MD 20993, USA.
Apoorva VishwakarmaDivision of Health IB, CDRH, Office of Product Evaluation and Quality, Office of Health Technology I, FDA, Silver Spring, MD 20993, USA.
Jon W WeeksDivision of Biology, Chemistry, and Materials Science, Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH), Office of Science and Engineering Laboratories, US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Silver Spring, MD 20993, USA.
Ruchi PandeyDivision of Biology, Chemistry, and Materials Science, Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH), Office of Science and Engineering Laboratories, US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Silver Spring, MD 20993, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Reusable medical devices are reprocessed between uses, including cleaning and, as necessary, disinfection or sterilization. Healthcare-associated infections have been attributed to reusable medical devices and linked to inadequate reprocessing, which can result in residual soil on the device, insufficient disinfection, microbial resistance to used disinfectants and biofilm-related contamination. These factors can lead to microbial proliferation on and biofouling of reusable medical devices, increasing the risk of patient infection. While there are FDA-recognized standards for cleaning validation (including artificial test soils), there is a lack of standards or guidance documents available to advise on determining whether biofilm has been adequately cleaned off reusable devices after reprocessing. Additionally, relatively few studies report reproducible models of biofilm formation on medical devices or device materials; such models are necessary to begin the identification of the microbial biofilm burden present before and after reprocessing. Moreover, appropriate analytes to quantify that biofilm burden, and the endpoints of those analytes after reprocessing, need to be determined. The study described herein utilized a drip flow reactor (DFR) to develop single-species biofilms of two Gram-negative (

Indexed as

BiofilmsEquipment and SuppliesStainless SteelDisinfectantsDisinfectionEquipment ContaminationEquipment ReuseStaphylococcus aureusDisinfectantsStainless Steelbiofilmmedical devicereprocessing

Identifiers

PMID41920586
PMCPMC13043183

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.