The DOI matches its Crossref record; 17 of the 17 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Evaluation of different detection methods of biofilm formation in the clinical isolates
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Microorganisms growing in a biofilm are associated with chronic and recurrent human infections and are highly resistant to antimicrobial agents. There are various methods to detect biofilm production like Tissue Culture Plate (TCP), Tube method (TM), Congo Red Agar method (CRA), bioluminescent assay, piezoelectric sensors, and fluorescent microscopic examination. OBJECTIVE: This study was conducted to compare three methods for the detection of biofilms. METHOD: The study was carried out at the Department of Microbiology, Army Medical College, National University of Sciences and Technology, Pakistan, from January 2010 to June 2010. A total of 110 clinical isolates were subjected to biofilm detection methods. Isolates were identified by standard microbiological procedures. Biofilm detection was tested by TCP, TM and CRA. Antibiotic susceptibility test of biofilm producing bacteria was performed by using the Kirby-Bauer disc diffusion technique according to CLSI guidelines. RESULTS: The TCP method was considered to be superior to TM and CRA. From the total of 110 clinical isolates, TCP method detected 22.7% as high, 41% moderate and 36.3% as weak or non-biofilm producers. We have observed higher antibiotic resistance in biofilm producing bacteria than non-biofilm producers. CONCLUSION: We can conclude from our study that the TCP method is a more quantitative and reliable method for the detection of biofilm forming microorganisms as compared to TM and CRA methods, and it can be recommended as a general screening method for detection of biofilm producing bacteria in laboratories.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Antibiotic Susceptibility Testing by a Standardized Single Disk Method
Bauer, A. W., Kirby, W. M. M., Sherris, J. C., & Turck, M. (1966) · American Journal of Clinical Pathology · doi:10.1093/ajcp/45.4_ts.493 · Cited by 18,523
Biofilms: Survival Mechanisms of Clinically Relevant Microorganisms
Donlan, R. M., & Costerton, J. W. (2002) · Clinical Microbiology Reviews · doi:10.1128/cmr.15.2.167-193.2002 · Cited by 6,644
Antibiotic resistance of bacteria in biofilms
Stewart, P. S., & William Costerton, J. (2001) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(01)05321-1 · Cited by 4,585
STEPANOVIĆ, S., VUKOVIĆ, D., HOLA, V., BONAVENTURA, G. D., DJUKIĆ, S., ĆIRKOVIĆ, I., & RUZICKA, F. (2007) · APMIS · doi:10.1111/j.1600-0463.2007.apm_630.x · Cited by 2,494
Christensen, G. D., Simpson, W. A., Younger, J. J., Baddour, L. M., Barrett, F. F., Melton, D. M., & Beachey, E. H. (1985) · Journal of Clinical Microbiology · doi:10.1128/jcm.22.6.996-1006.1985 · Cited by 2,255
Lewis, K. (2001) · Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy · doi:10.1128/aac.45.4.999-1007.2001 · Cited by 1,980
Biofilms and Device-Associated Infections
Donlan, R. M. (2001) · Emerging Infectious Diseases · doi:10.3201/eid0702.010226 · Cited by 1,504
Adherence of slime-producing strains of Staphylococcus epidermidis to smooth surfaces
Christensen, G. D., Simpson, W. A., Bisno, A. L., & Beachey, E. H. (1982) · Infection and Immunity · doi:10.1128/iai.37.1.318-326.1982 · Cited by 1,410
New method for detecting slime production by coagulase negative staphylococci.
Freeman, D. J., Falkiner, F. R., & Keane, C. T. (1989) · Journal of Clinical Pathology · doi:10.1136/jcp.42.8.872 · Cited by 1,319
Biofilm Formation by Plant-Associated Bacteria
Danhorn, T., & Fuqua, C. (2007) · Annual Review of Microbiology · doi:10.1146/annurev.micro.61.080706.093316 · Cited by 822
Cited by
Roy, R., Tiwari, M., Donelli, G., & Tiwari, V. (2018) · Virulence · doi:10.1080/21505594.2017.1313372 · Cited by 1,523
Understanding bacterial biofilms: From definition to treatment strategies
Zhao, A., Sun, J., & Liu, Y. (2023) · Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology · doi:10.3389/fcimb.2023.1137947 · Cited by 743
Haney, E., Trimble, M., Cheng, J., Vallé, Q., & Hancock, R. (2018) · Biomolecules · doi:10.3390/biom8020029 · Cited by 308
Thirumoorthy, G., Balasubramanian, B., George, J. A., Nizam, A., Nagella, P., Srinatha, N., Pappuswamy, M., Alanazi, A. M., Meyyazhagan, A., Rengasamy, K. R. R., et al. (2024) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-024-51647-x · Cited by 79
Mahmoud, D. E., Faraag, A. H. I., & Abu El-Wafa, W. M. (2021) · World Journal of Microbiology and Biotechnology · doi:10.1007/s11274-021-03158-4 · Cited by 26
Metadata
- Authors
- Hassan, A., Usman, J., Kaleem, F., Omair, M., Khalid, A., & Iqbal, M.
- Venue
- The Brazilian Journal of Infectious Diseases
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2011-07
- Volume
- 15
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 305-311
- ISSN
- 1413-8670 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2127027167
- Cited by
- 577
- References
- 17
- FWCI
- 3.64
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Evaluation of different detection methods of biofilm formation in the clinical isolates. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/s1413-8670(11)70197-0
- The paper
- Hassan, A., Usman, J., Kaleem, F., Omair, M., Khalid, A., & Iqbal, M. (2011). Evaluation of different detection methods of biofilm formation in the clinical isolates. The Brazilian Journal of Infectious Diseases. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1413-8670(11)70197-0
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
