Evidence mapPaperPMID 37812003Full record

ReviewClinical microbiology reviews2023

Biofilm antimicrobial susceptibility testing: where are we and where could we be going?

Tom Coenye

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Clinical microbiology reviews, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 42 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
42citing 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

42 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. UnderstandingMicroorganisms · 2026
    Review
  14. Antibiotic resistance inFrontiers in microbiology · 2026
    Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

1 author.

Tom CoenyeLaboratory of Pharmaceutical Microbiology, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0002-6407-0601

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Our knowledge about the fundamental aspects of biofilm biology, including the mechanisms behind the reduced antimicrobial susceptibility of biofilms, has increased drastically over the last decades. However, this knowledge has so far not been translated into major changes in clinical practice. While the biofilm concept is increasingly on the radar of clinical microbiologists, physicians, and healthcare professionals in general, the standardized tools to study biofilms in the clinical microbiology laboratory are still lacking; one area in which this is particularly obvious is that of antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST). It is generally accepted that the biofilm lifestyle has a tremendous impact on antibiotic susceptibility, yet AST is typically still carried out with planktonic cells. On top of that, the microenvironment at the site of infection is an important driver for microbial physiology and hence susceptibility; but this is poorly reflected in current AST methods. The goal of this review is to provide an overview of the state of the art concerning biofilm AST and highlight the knowledge gaps in this area. Subsequently, potential ways to improve biofilm-based AST will be discussed. Finally, bottlenecks currently preventing the use of biofilm AST in clinical practice, as well as the steps needed to get past these bottlenecks, will be discussed.

Indexed as

Anti-Bacterial AgentsBiofilmsHumansMicrobial Sensitivity TestsAnti-Bacterial Agentsbiofilmsusceptibility testing

Identifiers

PMID37812003
PMCPMC10732061

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
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 Socratic graph.