ReviewAdvances in wound care2012
Wound Healing Finally Enters the Age of Molecular Diagnostic Medicine.
Review in Advances in wound care, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diagnostic value of a point of care bacterial fluorescence imaging device for detecting wound infections in dogs and cats.Veterinary surgery : VS · 2025Article
- Detection limitations of bacteria in tissue samples.Bone & joint research · 2025Article
- Article
- Review
- Advanced Wound Diagnostics: Toward Transforming Wound Care into Precision Medicine.Advances in wound care · 2022Review
- Comparison Between Cultivation and Sequencing Based Approaches for Microbiota Analysis in Swabs and Biopsies of Chronic Wounds.Frontiers in medicine · 2021Article
- Do Mixed-Species Biofilms Dominate in Chronic Infections?-Need forFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMany wounds are difficult to heal because of the large, complex community of microbes present within the wound. THE PROBLEM: Classical laboratory culture methods do not provide an accurate picture of the microbial interactions or representation of microorganisms within a wound. There is an inherent bias in diagnosis based upon classical culture stemming from the ability of certain organisms to thrive in culture while others are underrepresented or fail to be identified in culture altogether. Chronic wounds also contain polymicrobial infections existing as a cooperative community that is resistant to antibiotic therapy. BASIC/CLINICAL SCIENCE ADVANCES: New methods in molecular diagnostic medicine allow the identification of nearly all organisms present in a wound irrespective of the ability of these organisms to be grown in culture. Advances in DNA analyses allow absolute identification of microorganisms from very small clinical specimens. These new methods also provide a quantitative representation of all microorganisms contributing to these polymicrobial infections. CLINICAL CARE RELEVANCE: Technological advances in laboratory diagnostics can significantly shorten the time required to heal chronic wounds. Identification of the genetic signatures of organisms present within a wound allows clinicians to identify and treat the primary organisms responsible for nonhealing wounds.
conclusionAdvanced genetic technologies targeting the specific needs of wound care patients are now accessible to all wound care clinicians.
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.