Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25196188›Full record

ArticleInternational wound journal2016

Clinician perceptions of wound biofilm.

Daniel G Metcalf, Philip G Bowler

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in International wound journal, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Antibiofilm Properties of Antiseptic Agents Used onInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2022
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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

2 authors.

Daniel G MetcalfScience and Technology, ConvaTec Global Development Centre, Deeside, UK. daniel.metcalf@convatec.com.
Philip G BowlerScience and Technology, ConvaTec Global Development Centre, Deeside, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In wound care today, biofilm is a subject area of great interest and debate. There is an increasing awareness that biofilm exists in the majority of non-healing wounds, and that it is implicated in both recalcitrance and infection. Together with the presence of devitalised host tissue, biofilm is recognised as a component of the wound environment that requires removal to enable wound progression. However, uncertainty exists among wound care practitioners regarding confirmation of the presence of biofilm, and how best to remove biofilm from a non-healing wound. While recent efforts have been taken to assist practitioners in signs and symptoms of wound biofilm, continuing research is required to characterise and confirm wound biofilm. This research was conducted as part of a market research process to better understand the knowledge levels, experiences, clinical awareness and impact of biofilm in wound care, which was undertaken across the USA and Europe. While knowledge levels and experiences vary from country to country, certain wound characteristics were consistently associated with the presence of biofilm.

Indexed as

DebridementAdultAnti-Infective AgentsAttitude of Health PersonnelBiofilmsEuropeFemaleHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHumansMaleMiddle AgedPhysiciansUnited StatesWound HealingWound InfectionAnti-Infective AgentsBiofilmClinicianHealingPerceptionsWound

Identifiers

PMID25196188
PMCPMC7950048

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.