ArticleInternational wound journal2015
Predicting complex acute wound healing in patients from a wound expertise centre registry: a prognostic study.
Article in International wound journal, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Artificial Intelligence Methods for Diagnostic and Decision-Making Assistance in Chronic Wounds: A Systematic Review.Journal of medical systems · 2025Pooled it
- Rapid identification of slow healing wounds.Wound repair and regeneration : official publication of the Wound Healing Society [and] the European Tissue Repair SocietyTrial
- An injectable, self-healing, anti-infective, and anti-inflammatory novel glycyrrhizic acid hydrogel for promoting acute wound healing and regeneration.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2024Article
- Individualized Risk Prediction for Improved Chronic Wound Management.Advances in wound care · 2023Review
- Creation of skin grafts from traumatic avulsed skin.BMJ case reports · 2021Article
- Assessing and comparing the quality of wound centres: a literature review and benchmarking pilot.International wound journal · 2017Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
It is important for caregivers and patients to know which wounds are at risk of prolonged wound healing to enable timely communication and treatment. Available prognostic models predict wound healing in chronic ulcers, but not in acute wounds, that is, originating after trauma or surgery. We developed a model to detect which factors can predict (prolonged) healing of complex acute wounds in patients treated in a large wound expertise centre (WEC). Using Cox and linear regression analyses, we determined which patient- and wound-related characteristics best predict time to complete wound healing and derived a prediction formula to estimate how long this may take. We selected 563 patients with acute wounds, documented in the WEC registry between 2007 and 2012. Wounds had existed for a median of 19 days (range 6-46 days). The majority of these were located on the leg (52%). Five significant independent predictors of prolonged wound healing were identified: wound location on the trunk [hazard ratio (HR) 0·565, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0·405-0·788; P = 0·001], wound infection (HR 0·728, 95% CI 0·534-0·991; P = 0·044), wound size (HR 0·993, 95% CI 0·988-0·997; P = 0·001), wound duration (HR 0·998, 95% CI 0·996-0·999; P = 0·005) and patient's age (HR 1·009, 95% CI 1·001-1·018; P = 0·020), but not diabetes. Awareness of the five factors predicting the healing of complex acute wounds, particularly wound infection and location on the trunk, may help caregivers to predict wound healing time and to detect, refer and focus on patients who need additional attention.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.