ArticleScientific reports2026
Development and comparative evaluation of in vitro, ex vivo, and in vivo models for the assessment of broad-spectrum topical antimicrobial efficacy.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The escalating prevalence of multidrug-resistant skin and soft tissue infections (SSTIs) undermines current decolonization strategies. While mupirocin remains the gold standard for MRSA, its inactivity against Pseudomonas aeruginosa creates a critical therapeutic gap in polymicrobial wounds. The development of effective alternatives is currently impeded by in vitro assays that fail to mimic the physical barriers of the wound microenvironment. To address these challenges, this study aimed to validate a comprehensive multi-tiered screening platform and evaluate the efficacy of a novel 5% ceftriaxone gel as a broad-spectrum alternative. We established a comprehensive, multi-tiered validation platform to assess a novel 5% ceftriaxone gel formulation. The pipeline included: (1) Agar Well Diffusion to quantify vehicle release kinetics; (2) a Gauze-Disk Biofilm Prevention assay to evaluate penetration through standard dressings; (3) an Ex Vivo Porcine Ear Skin model to challenge efficacy against the stratum corneum and wound lipids; and (4) an In Vivo Galleria mellonella model to assess the prevention of systemic lethality. The formulation was benchmarked against mupirocin, and triple antibiotic ointment. In diffusion assays, the 5% ceftriaxone gel exhibited broad-spectrum release, producing inhibition zones > 44 mm against staphylococci and a mean zone of 50.1 mm against P. aeruginosa. In the Gauze model, the formulation successfully permeated standard cotton dressings, achieving complete bacterial eradication (No Growth) across all tested strains, including P. aeruginosa, significantly outperforming positive controls (p < 0.001). Crucially, in the ex vivo porcine model, the gel maintained potent bioactivity despite the lipid barrier, yielding significant > log reductions at 24 h across all strains: MRSA (> 2.5-log), MSSA (> 3-log), S. pyogenes (> 4-log), and P. aeruginosa (> 4-log). Furthermore, topical application in the in vivo G. mellonella model significantly reduced the systemic bacterial burden across all pathogens (p < 0.05), validating trans-cuticular protective efficacy. This study evaluates a robust, ethical preclinical screening platform for topical antimicrobials. The findings suggest that a high-concentration ceftriaxone gel has the potential to address the "mupirocin gap" by providing broad-spectrum coverage against both resistant staphylococci and Pseudomonas in experimental models.
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.