Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22067000›Full record

ArticleInternational wound journal2012

No need for biopsies: comparison of three sample techniques for wound microbiota determination.

Kristine Gjødsbøl, Mette E Skindersoe, Jens Jørgen Christensen, Tonny Karlsmark, Bo Jørgensen, Anders Mørup Jensen, Bjarke M Klein, Michael K Sonnested, Karen A Krogfelt

Open access · bronzeAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in International wound journal, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.9field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

22 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 51 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. [Chronic wounds and bacteria. Clinical relevance, detection and therapy].Der Hautarzt; Zeitschrift fur Dermatologie, Venerologie, und verwandte Gebiete · 2014
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Kristine GjødsbølDepartment of Microbiological Surveillance and Research, Statens Serum Institut, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Mette E Skindersoe
Jens Jørgen Christensen
Tonny Karlsmark
Bo Jørgensen
Anders Mørup Jensen
Bjarke M Klein
Michael K Sonnested
Karen A Krogfelt
Statens Serum Institut · DKBispebjerg Hospital · DK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The aim of the study was to compare three sampling techniques used in routine diagnostics to identify the microbiota in chronic venous leg ulcers. A total of 46 patients with persisting venous leg ulcers were included in the study. At inclusion, swab, biopsy and filter paper pad samples were collected. After 4 weeks, additional biopsy and filter paper pad samples were collected. Bacteria were isolated and identified at species level by standard methods. The most common bacterial species detected was Staphylococcus aureus found in 89% of the ulcers. No methicillin-resistant S. aureus isolates were found. We did not find any significant differences regarding the bacterial species isolated between the three sampling techniques. However, using multiple techniques led to identification of more species. Our study suggests that it is sufficient to use swab specimens to identify the bacterial species present in chronic wounds, thus avoiding complications during and after biopsy sampling.

Indexed as

MetagenomeAdultAgedAged, 80 and overBacteriaBiopsyChronic DiseaseDiagnosis, DifferentialFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansLeg UlcerMaleMiddle AgedReproducibility of ResultsSpecimen Handling

Identifiers

PMID22067000
PMCPMC7950541
OpenAlexW2037893722

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.