Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 242

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 12 of the 12 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Options and Limitations in Clinical Investigation of Bacterial Biofilms

Open access
Magana, Maria, Sereti, Christina, Ioannidis, Anastasios, Mitchell, Courtney A., Ball, Anthony R., Magiorkinis, Emmanouil, Chatzipanagiotou, Stylianos, Hamblin, Michael R., Hadjifrangiskou, Maria, Tegos, George P.·2018·Clinical Microbiology Reviews

Abstract

SUMMARY: Bacteria can form single- and multispecies biofilms exhibiting diverse features based upon the microbial composition of their community and microenvironment. The study of bacterial biofilm development has received great interest in the past 20 years and is motivated by the elegant complexity characteristic of these multicellular communities and their role in infectious diseases. Biofilms can thrive on virtually any surface and can be beneficial or detrimental based upon the community's interplay and the surface. Advances in the understanding of structural and functional variations and the roles that biofilms play in disease and host-pathogen interactions have been addressed through comprehensive literature searches. In this review article, a synopsis of the methodological landscape of biofilm analysis is provided, including an evaluation of the current trends in methodological research. We deem this worthwhile because a keyword-oriented bibliographical search reveals that less than 5% of the biofilm literature is devoted to methodology. In this report, we (i) summarize current methodologies for biofilm characterization, monitoring, and quantification; (ii) discuss advances in the discovery of effective imaging and sensing tools and modalities; (iii) provide an overview of tailored animal models that assess features of biofilm infections; and (iv) make recommendations defining the most appropriate methodological tools for clinical settings.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1128/cmr.00084-16

Cites

12 of 12 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 12 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Magana, M., Sereti, C., Ioannidis, A., Mitchell, C. A., Ball, A. R., Magiorkinis, E., Chatzipanagiotou, S., Hamblin, M. R., Hadjifrangiskou, M., & Tegos, G. P.
Venue
Clinical Microbiology Reviews
Published
2018-07
Volume
31
Issue
3
ISSN
  • 0893-8512 (ISSN-L)
  • 1098-6618
OpenAlex
W2796114057
Cited by
242
References
12
FWCI
8.24
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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

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.