↓ Skip to main content

Synergistic effects of heat and antibiotics on Pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilms

Overview of attention for article published in Biofouling, October 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
patent
3 patents

Readers on

mendeley
60 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Synergistic effects of heat and antibiotics on Pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilms
Published in
Biofouling, October 2017
DOI 10.1080/08927014.2017.1381688
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Upon formation of a biofilm, bacteria undergo several changes that prevent eradication with antimicrobials alone. Due to this resistance, the standard of care for infected medical implants is explantation of the infected implant and surrounding tissue, followed by eventual reimplantation of a replacement device. Recent studies have demonstrated the efficacy of heat shock for biofilm eradication. To minimize the heat required for in situ biofilm eradication, this study investigated the hypothesis that antibiotics, while ineffective by themselves, may substantially increase heat shock efficacy. The combined effect of heat and antibiotics on Pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilms was quantified via heat shock in combination with ciprofloxacin, tobramycin, or erythromycin at multiple concentrations. Combined treatments had synergistic effects for all antibiotics for heat shock conditions of 60°C for 5 min to 70°C for 1 min, indicating an alternative to surgical explantation.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 60 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 60 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 22%
Researcher 7 12%
Student > Bachelor 4 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 5%
Unspecified 2 3%
Other 9 15%
Unknown 22 37%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 13%
Engineering 7 12%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 7%
Chemistry 4 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 5%
Other 8 13%
Unknown 26 43%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 07 July 2026.
All research outputs
#7,112,822
of 33,992,632 outputs
Outputs from Biofouling
#117
of 958 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#90,441
of 368,118 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Biofouling
#4
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 33,992,632 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 78th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 958 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its peers.
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 368,118 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.