Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23418808›Full record

ReviewInternational wound journal2013

New techniques for wound debridement.

Brijesh M Madhok, Kathryn Vowden, Peter Vowden

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in International wound journal, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
5.7field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 75 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Debridement for surgical wounds.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. What's New in Wound Healing: Treatment Advances and Microbial Insights.American journal of clinical dermatology · 2025
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Ultrasound-Mediated Antibiotic Delivery to In Vivo Biofilm Infections: A Review.Chembiochem : a European journal of chemical biology · 2024
    Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Review
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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Brijesh M MadhokDepartment of Vascular Surgery, Bradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Bradford, UK.
Kathryn Vowden
Peter Vowden
University of Bradford · GBBradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Debridement is a crucial component of wound management. Traditionally, several types of wound debridement techniques have been used in clinical practice such as autolytic, enzymatic, biodebridement, mechanical, conservative sharp and surgical. Various factors determine the method of choice for debridement for a particular wound such as suitability to the patient, the type of wound, its anatomical location and the extent of debridement required. Recently developed products are beginning to challenge traditional techniques that are currently used in wound bed preparation. The purpose of this review was to critically evaluate the current evidence behind the use of these newer techniques in clinical practice. There is some evidence to suggest that low frequency ultrasound therapy may improve healing rates in patients with venous ulcers and diabetic foot ulcers. Hydrosurgery debridement is quick and precise, but the current evidence is limited and further studies are underway. Debridement using a monofilament polyester fibre pad and plasma-mediated bipolar radiofrequency ablation are both very new techniques. The initial evidence is limited, and further studies are warranted to confirm their role in management of chronic wounds.

Indexed as

Wound HealingDebridementHumansLeg UlcerTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID23418808
PMCPMC7950889
OpenAlexW2130671021

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.