JOURNAL CRITIQUE

Hospital Assignment: Date Submitted:

Name: Class number:

Journal Article Title: Influence of Laboratory Culture Media on in vitro Growth, Adhesion, and
Biofilm Formation of Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Staphylococcus aureus

For Faculty yung LAST COLUMN

Elements influencing
YE
the believability of the NO Comments and Evidences
S
research

V1

The report was well written, concise, and

Writing Style
● Is the report well
written –concise,
grammatically ✔ that provides the readers with several supporting
correct, avoid the
use of jargon? It
is well laid out
and organized?
grammatically correct. It was able to relay the
concepts in a straightforward fashion. Although the
use of jargon can not be avoided due to the nature of
the paper, the authors were able to conceptualize
and explain the certain concepts, methods, and
principles that are related to the topic. Overall, the
report was well laid out and organized in a manner
points that helps to understand the topic presented.
V2
The report is well-written and concise. There were no
major grammatical errors that may cause a reader to
get confused. Some jargon was used, which some
people may find difficult to understand, but it was
unavoidable due to the nature of the article.

v1

All of the authors are qualified to contribute their

knowledge and produce credible results in this
particular field as they all have a background in
Author
health science, as medical researchers and
● Do the lecturers. It was stated that the authors were
researcher(s’) affiliated with the Department of Microbiology, the
qualifications or ✔ Department of Chemistry, and the Center for
positions indicate Advanced Materials Research, in the University of
a degree of Sri Jayewardenepura. The authors were associated
knowledge in this
with the Institute of Nanotechnology and Health
particular field?
Sciences Center, Kuwait University as well.

v2

The researchers have the qualifications for them to

research in the field of microbiology. In the first page,
 affiliations to the different universities namely the,
Department of Microbiology, Faculty of Medical
Sciences, and Department of Chemistry, Faculty of
Applied Sciences in the University of Sri
Jayewardenepura, Nugegoda, Sri Lanka, Institute of
Nanotechnology, Center for Excellence in
Nanotechnology, Nanoscience and Technology Park,
Homagama, Sri Lanka, Center for Advanced
Materials Research, Faculty of Applied Sciences,
University of Sri Jayewardenepura, Nugegoda, Sri
Lanka and Health Sciences Center, Kuwait
University, Kuwait City, Kuwait.

v3

Yes, the authors’ qualifications indicate a degree of

knowledge in this particular field. Gayan Wijesinghe,
Ayomi Dilhari, and Manjula Weerasekera are
affiliated with the Department of Microbiology,
Faculty of Medical Sciences, University of Sri
Jayewardenepura, Nugegoda, Sri Lanka. Buddhika
Gayani is affiliated with Department of Chemistry,
Faculty of Applied Sciences, University of Sri
Jayewardenepura, Nugegoda, Sri Lanka and Center
for Advanced Materials Research, Faculty of Applied
Sciences, University of Sri Jayewardenepura,
Nugegoda, Sri Lanka. Nilwala Kottegoda is affiliated
with Department of Chemistry, Faculty of Applied
Sciences, University of Sri Jayewardenepura,
Nugegoda, Sri Lanka; Institute of Nanotechnology,
Center for Excellence in Nanotechnology,
Nanoscience and Technology Park, Homagama, Sri
Lanka; and Center for Advanced Materials Research,
Faculty of Applied Sciences, University of Sri
Jayewardenepura, Nugegoda, Sri Lanka. Lastly,
Lakshman Samaranayake is affiliated with Health
Sciences Center, Kuwait University, Kuwait City,
Kuwait. These affiliations with the authors indicate
that they are qualified to be part of their respective
departments, which could indicate that the authors
have knowledge in conducting such research.

Report Title ✔
V2
● Is the title clear, Yes, the title of the report, “Influence of Laboratory
accurate, and Culture Media on in vitro Growth, Adhesion , and
unambiguous?
Biofilm Formation of Pseudomonas aeruginosa and
Staphylococcus aureus”, is clear and concise. The
title perfectly depicts the study which explores the
influence of various culture media on certain factors,
such as (1) growth, (2) adhesion, and (3) biofilm
formation of P. aeruginosa and S. aureus. Moreover,
it avoided the use of acronyms, technical jargons,
and abbreviations, alternatively chose simple but
accurate terms that directly describe significance and
objectives of the study. The title also serves as a
bird’s eye view regarding the main theme of the
 paper, determining the culture medium suited for
these pathogens.

The abstract was very clear and concise. It was

divided into 4 parts: objective which introduced the
research problem which was difficulty in managing P.
aeruginosa and S. aureus and the goal of the study
which was to evaluate the influence of different
culture medias on the planktonic growth, adhesion,
and biofilm formation of said species; the materials
and methods which mentioned that they used 4
different culture media for the study: Nutrient Broth,
Brain Heart Infusion (BHI) broth, Luria-Bertani broth,
and RPMI 1640 and the methods used were MTT
Abstract
assay and scanning electron microscopy (SEM); the
● Does the summary of their results which showed that the BHI
abstract offer a broth had the most robust growth and biofilm growth
clear overview of while the RPMI 1640 had the maximal initial
the study
including the
adhesion; and finally the conclusion wherein the
research researchers stated that BHI broth is the most optimal
problem, sample, one for managing P. aeruginosa and S. aureus
methodology, compared to the other tested media. Although no
finding, and recommendations were included in the abstract, it
recommendation
s?
was more than enough to provide the readers a clear
picture of the study.

The abstract generally provides a brief overview

regarding the research. It includes complete
information about the research problem, background,
methods used, sample size, findings, and conclusion
from the study. Recommendations, though, should
be included as part of the abstract to give the
readers an idea of the limitations of the research.

Elements influencing
YE
the robustness of the NO Comments and Evidences
S
research
 V1

The purpose of the research was clearly stated by

the authors which was due to the increasing
antimicrobial resistance of Pseudomonas aeruginosa

and Staphylococcus aureus in biofilm formation that

Purpose/Research results to a poorer prognosis.
Problem

● Is the purpose of
the study or V2
research
problem clearly
stated?
In the abstract and introduction to the study, the
research problem was clearly stated. According to
the researchers, biofilm-caused polymicrobial
illnesses are on the rise all over the world. Some
organisms, such as P. aeruginosa and S. aureus,
can cause infections, worsening the patient's health.
They also stated that there is minimal information on
the effects of culture media on biofilm development.

V1

The study follows in a logical manner with a research

problem introduced then the objectives before
mentioning the methods done. Results were shown
in parallel to the methods stated before an in-depth
discussion and conclusions were drawn.

V2
Logical Consistency
The study was presented logically and systematically
● Does the by following the format used by IMRAD. It first began
research report
follow the steps with the introduction where brief backgrounds on P.
of the research aeruginosa and S. aureus, and culture media were
process in a shown. It was subsequently followed by the
logical manner? methodology which elaborated on the steps the
researchers had undertaken to acquire data. Then,
the results of data analysis using statistical tools
were identified, followed by a thorough discussion
that provided more in-depth explanations with
support from previous studies. The study ended with
a conclusion that is parallel from the results and
discussion. Each section was written
comprehensively and succinctly, thus capturing the
audience’s attention.
Literature Review

● Is the review
logically
organized and
offers a balanced
critical analysis
of the literature?
Theoretical Framework

● Is there an
identified
conceptual or
theoretical There was no conceptual or theoretical framework
✔
framework? that was identified in the research.
● If yes, was it
adequately
described and is
the framework
appropriate?
Aims/Objectives/Resear ✔ The objective of this paper was briefly stated in the
ch abstract on page 1, and was further explained in the
Question/Hypotheses introduction on page 2. The main aim of the authors
● Have aims and was to investigate how the 4 culture media affect the
objectives, a biofilm formation, adhesion, and planktonic growth of
research P. aeruginosa and S. aureus. The research was
question or clearly conducted with these goals in mind, and the
hypothesis been
literature review reflected supporting information that
clearly
identified? was in line with the objectives.
● If yes, are they
clearly stated
and reflect the
information V2
presented in the
literature review? The objectives of the study were clearly identified in
abstract and the introduction of the paper on the last
paragraph in page two. The objective was to
determine the effect of the different culture mediums
used in the study on the growth, adhesion, and
biofilm formation of mono- and cocultures of S.
aureus and P. aeruginosa biofilms. The objectives
reflect the information presented in the literature
review, which support the objectives of the study.

V3

The aims and objectives were clearly identified. It

was indicated in the abstract and introduction of the
paper. It is stated that “The main objective of the
current study was to determine the impact of four
different culture media with varying nutrient
compositions on the growth, adhesion, and biofilm
formation of mono- and cocultures of S. aureus and
P. aeruginosa, so as to provide foundation data for
future functional studies. It is clearly stated and
reflects the information presented in the literature
review as it provides supporting statements for the
 objective of the study.
Sample/Population

● Has the target

population been
clearly
identified?
● How were the There were no target population identified since it not
sample ✓
applicable due to the nature of the study .
selected?
● Is it of adequate
size?
● Are the
inclusion/exclusi
on criteria clearly
identified?
Ethical Considerations

● Were the Since the focus of the study were effect of culture media
participants fully on the in vitro growth, adhesion, and biofilm formation of
informed about both Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Staphylococcus
the nature of the aureus, informed consent and confidentiality were not
research? taken into account since human participation was not
● Was the ✓ considered.
confidentiality of
the participants
guaranteed?
● Was ethical Ethical approval was not sought for the study because it
permission does not contain any human or animal subjects.
granted for the
study?
V1

The research design was not specifically stated in

the "Materials and Methods'' section. However, as
the study went along with the discussion of the main
topics, laboratory procedures used, and findings, it
could imply that the researchers used experimental
research design as they investigated the two
pathogenic organisms in four culture media. It also
utilized quantitative analysis with the use of statistical
Study Design treatments, SPSS16.0 (for Windows), and One-way
● Is the research ✓ and Two-way ANOVA, with p values of less than
design clearly 0.05 identified as statistically significant results.
dentified?

V2

The study design was not specifically stated on the

paper but upon analyzing the methodology section,
different laboratory materials and procedures were
utilized in investigating S.aureus and P.aeruginosa
Therefore, this implies that the study has an
experimental research design.
Methodology V1

● Has the data

gathering
instrument been The data gathering method was briefly described in the
described and is paper. The researchers used and monitored four culture
 media with the use of growth curves that include Nutrient
Broth, Brain Heart Infusion (BHI) broth, Luria-Bertani broth
(LB), and RPMI 1640 medium on the strains of P. aeruginosa
and S. aureus planktonic growth assay, bacterial adhesion,
and biofilm growth assay formation with the use of MTT assay
for quantification, and scanning electron microscopy for
ultrastructural studies.

It was mentioned in the “materials and methods” that they

used strains of P. aeruginosa and S. aureus that were
obtained from the American Type Culture Collection, where
Nutrient Agar was used to maintain stock cultures, then sub-
cultured on Nutrient Agar plates, and incubated at 35 degrees
C for 24 hours.

The effect of the different culture media were determined by

using growth curves. Furthermore, the method was
appropriate since the assays help determine the growth rate
and determine the influence of the different culture media. All
of the methods for Planktonic growth assay, bacterial
it appropriate? adhesion, and biofilm growth assays were summarized well
and were able to provide a detailed description of the step-by-
step procedures, including the materials and reagents used,
preparation of solution, the time of incubation and
temperature for plates, cell suspensions, washing, and
aspiration.

V2

The data gathering instrument of the research was

described in the materials and methods section of the
article. Different data gathering instruments such as
microtiter plate reader (SPECTRAmaxPLUS384
Molecular Devices Inc., USA) and MTT assay were
used to quantify results and gather data. Growth curves
and graphs were used to compare and determine the
effects of the different culture media. Scanning Electron
Microscopy was also used for ultrastructural studies.
The data gathering instruments were appropriate as it
helped determine the effects of different culture media
which was the objective of the research.
Data Analysis and V1
Results
Yes, the conclusions and discussion clearly reflected
● Do the the calculated statistics. On page 3 (or page 30) of
conclusions and
discussion reflect
the article, p values of <0.05 are considered as
the calculated statistically significant. However, this statistical value
statistics was only used in regards to the effect of culture
(example: mean, media on bacterial adhesion, which used a two-way
p values, or ANOVA followed by a Bonferroni post hoc test. The
confidence
statistically significant difference was with the NB
intervals)?
● Were the results and RPMI 1640 medium. NB medium least
presented clearly supported bacterial adhesion whereas the RPMI
and sufficiently 1640 medium elicited the highest substrate
to enable to draw adhesion. This can be seen on figure 2 of page 4 (or
conclusions? page 31) and under the “Effect of Culture Media on
Bacterial Adhesion” subsection of the Results in the
aforementioned page.

The results of the Growth Rate of Planktonic Bacteria

in Culture Media, Growth of Mono- and Mixed-
Species Biofilms, and Ultrastructure of Bacterial
Biofilms in BHI Medium were also presented clearly
and sufficient enough to draw conclusions from. In
regards to the first, BHI broth achieved maximal
growth of all mono- and cocultures, followed by LB
medium, NB, and RPMI media. The latter two were
least supportive. For the growth of mono- and mixed-
species biofilms, BHI broth observed maximal
growth, followed by RPMI 1640, LB, then NB media.
Lastly, as BHI broth was observed to induce maximal
biofilm growth in mono- and mixed-species cultures
of the two organisms, SEM evaluation of its
ultrastructure was able support the positive impact of
BHI medium in biofilm development. All parts of the
results and data analysis were organized and
presented well.

For the Discussion section on page 4 (or page 31),

the authors were able to properly rationalize and
provide supporting literature to their results. It is here
that they were able to provide insight on why the BHI
broth medium was the most conducive growth
medium for studying in vitro biofilm and planktonic
growth kinetics of P. aeruginosa and S. aureus,
particularly in coculture. In addition to this, they also
provided a brief yet informative discussion regarding
the LB, NB, and RPMI 1640 media and why they
were inferior to the BHI broth. However, it is still
important to take note that the RPMI 1640 media
was superior compared to the BHI medium in
regards to bacterial adhesion to the culture media.

Overall, the data analysis and results were indeed

clear and provided sufficient information to effectively
draw out conclusions. The conclusions and
discussions also reflected the calculated statistics.

V2

The discussion and conclusion clearly reflected the

calculated statistics. However, statistics was only
used to measure the effect of culture media on
bacterial adhesion. NB medium supported bacterial
 adhesion to least extent while RPMI 1640 medium
elicited the highest bacterial adhesion. In the Growth
Rate of Planktonic Bacteria in Culture Media, Growth
of Mono- and Mixed-Species Biofilms, and
Ultrastructure of Bacterial Biofilms, BHI broth
medium provided the highest yield and maximal
growth among the four mediums. Furthermore, the
discussion provides literature to support the finding
of the study.

V1

It was mentioned in the conclusion that the BHI broth

is the most suitable for the in vitro evaluation of the
biofilm and planktonic development kinetics of the
two pathogens in both mono- and coculture, when
compared to the other examined media based on the
findings in the data analysis that were presented.
Conclusions

● Have the authors

expressed the
effects of an
intervention or V2
exposure in
terms of the The authors have expressed in the latter part of the
likely benefit or study the possible efficacious benefits of the usage
harm which an
individual patient
of BHI broth culture medium in the growth assays of
can expect? bacterial pathogens like the P. aeruginosa and S.
● Do the authors’ aureus. The authors mentioned that the findings of
conclusions the study revealed that BHI broth is the most
match the data, favorable growth medium for the in vitro biofilm and
analysis, and
statistical
planktonic development kinetics of P. aeruginosa
significance? and S. aureus, particularly in coculture. This
conclusion has matched the data, analysis, and
statistical significance of the study as the authors’
conclusion was congruent with the statistical
significance declared in the statistical analysis
section of the study that enabled the researchers to
interpret their data efficiently and correctly, which
resulted to favorable findings.
Recommendations The researchers were not able to state any
● Was a recommendations for further research. The authors
✓
recommendation only stated that the study’s data may be used as a
for further basis for future studies.
research made?
Clinical Impact V1
Statement
As a future medical technologist, the report journal
● What is your significantly helped in expanding my knowledge
perception of the
potential impact
regarding the influence of different culture media in
of the study on the production of Pseudomonas aeruginosa and
your health care Staphylococcus aureus in terms of growth, adhesion
 and biofilm formation. With this, it will be more
convenient to expect the results of this since the
conclusion already provided the potential effect of
each specific culture media to the production of
these pathogens. Since Brain Heart Infusion broth
was concluded to be the most favorable medium for
the growth kinetics of P. aeruginosa and S. aureus,
this medium should be used more often for culturing
the pathogens.

v2

With the increasing difficulty in managing

Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Staphylococcus
aureus dual- species biofilm infections, it is important
profession, to find a solution and eradicate this problem .
especially on
your practice? Through this research, we can identify the culture
media that is the most conducive growth medium in
terms of studying in vitro biofilm and planktonic
growth kinetics of Pseudomonas aeruginosa and
Staphylococcus aureus.

Therefore, BHI media should often be used to avoid

the recalcitrant polymicrobial infections caused by
biofilms. Furthermore, as Future Medical
Technologists, we must do our best in being updated
about recent discoveries regarding the pathological
progressions and consequences of infections that
could lead to the diagnosis and treatment. Being
updated in findings such as this can be beneficial in
increasing our efficiency in the laboratory.

References 

Coughlan, M., Cronin, P., & Ryan, F. (2007). Step-by-step guide to critiquing research. Part
1: quantitative research. British Journal of Nursing (Mark Allen Publishing), 16(11), 658–663.
https://doi.org/10.12968/bjon.2007.16.11.23681

Sullivan. (2008). Critical Appraisal for Research Papers Appraisal Checklist & Guide
Questions.
 University of Santo Tomas
Faculty of Pharmacy
Department of Medical Technology