Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27764766›Full record

ReviewPhysiological genomics2016

Reactive oxygen species and bacterial biofilms in diabetic wound healing.

Aksone Nouvong, Aaron M Ambrus, Ellen R Zhang, Lucas Hultman, Hilary A Coller

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Physiological genomics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing 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

38 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Hyaluronic acid-Bioengineering & translational medicine · 2023
    Article
  19. Metabiotic extracted fromIranian journal of microbiology · 2023
    Article
  20. 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

5 authors.

Aksone NouvongDepartment of Vascular Surgery, David Geffen School of Medicine, Los Angeles, California.
Aaron M AmbrusDepartment of Molecular, Cell and Developmental Biology, University of California, Los Angeles, California; and.
Ellen R ZhangDepartment of Molecular, Cell and Developmental Biology, University of California, Los Angeles, California; and.
Lucas HultmanDepartment of Podiatric Medicine and Surgery, Department of Veteran Affairs of Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, Los Angeles, California.
Hilary A CollerDepartment of Molecular, Cell and Developmental Biology, University of California, Los Angeles, California; and hcoller@ucla.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Chronic wounds are a common and debilitating complication for the diabetic population. It is challenging to study the development of chronic wounds in human patients; by the time it is clear that a wound is chronic, the early phases of wound healing have passed and can no longer be studied. Because of this limitation, mouse models have been employed to better understand the early phases of chronic wound formation. In the past few years, a series of reports have highlighted the importance of reactive oxygen species and bacterial biofilms in the development of chronic wounds in diabetics. We review these recent findings and discuss mouse models that are being utilized to enhance our understanding of these potentially important contributors to chronic wound formation in diabetic patients.

Indexed as

AnimalsBiofilmsDiabetes MellitusHumansReactive Oxygen SpeciesWound HealingReactive Oxygen Speciesbiofilmdiabetesreactive oxygen specieswounds

Identifiers

PMID27764766
PMCPMC5206388

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.