| Title |
Species-specific characteristics of the biofilm generated in silicone tube: an in vitro study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Ophthalmology, April 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12886-018-0750-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Dong Ju Kim, Joo-Hee Park, Minwook Chang |
| Abstract |
To investigate characteristics of biofilm which is usually found in silicone tube for nasolacrimal duct surgery and can be the root of chronic bacterial infections eventually resulted in surgical failure. To form a biofilm, sterile silicone tube was placed in culture media of Staphylococcus aureus, Corynebacterium matruchotii, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, or Streptococcus pneumonia. Biofilms formed on these silicone tubes were fixed with 95% ethanol and stained with 0.1% crystal violet. After staining, the optical densities of biofilms were measured using spectrophotometer on a weekly basis for 12 weeks. Staphylococcus aureus group and Pseudomonas aeruginosa group formed significantly more amounts of biofilms compared to the control group. The maximum optical densities of the two groups were found on week 3-4 followed by a tendency of decrease afterwards. However, the amounts of biofilms formed in other groups of silicone tubes were not statistically significant from that of the control group. Bacterial species that could form biofilm on silicone tube included Staphylococcus aureus (week 3) and Pseudomonas aeruginosa (Week 4). It is important to first consider that the cause of infection around 1 month after silicone tube intubation can be Staphylococcus aureus and Pseudomonas aeruginosa. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Scientists | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 28 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 28 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 7 | 25% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 11% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 2 | 7% |
| Lecturer > Senior Lecturer | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 3 | 11% |
| Unknown | 9 | 32% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 25% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 14% |
| Engineering | 3 | 11% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 2 | 7% |
| Environmental Science | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 11 | 39% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 06 April 2018.
All research outputs
#18,601,965
of 23,041,514 outputs
Outputs from BMC Ophthalmology
#1,570
of 2,409 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#255,657
of 329,118 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Ophthalmology
#22
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,041,514 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,409 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.7. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 329,118 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 32 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.