ReviewMaterials (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Assessment of Quality in Antimicrobial Calcium Phosphate Research (AQUACAP): A Systematic Review.
Review in Materials (Basel, Switzerland), 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The effectiveness of antimicrobial ion-substituted calcium phosphate biomaterials has been investigated in numerous studies, but reporting guidelines and quality checklists are missing. A novel quality checklist was created for assessing reporting and methodological quality by experts of relevant disciplines. The checklist consisted of 20 items for reporting quality (maximum score 32) and 11 for methodological quality (maximum score 18). The checklist was subsequently implemented to assess the reporting and methodological quality of 58 studies in this field. Possible associations between study quality, year of publication and citations were investigated, and items for improvement were identified. Main items for improvement in reporting quality (average score 18/32) were reporting variability and statistics of data, reporting rationales for study design and the clinical relevance of the outcomes. Methodological quality (average score 11/18) could be improved by including positive control groups, using clinically relevant material formulations and including tests of the material toxicity. No association was found between study quality and year of publication. Methodological quality was associated with a higher number of annual citations. This study identifies key areas for improvement of reporting and methodological quality in the field of ion-substituted antimicrobial calcium phosphates. With these findings, the quality of future studies on antimicrobial CaP materials can be improved. The new quality checklist can also be used to improve study design for future research and enables better comparison between study outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.