Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28681702›Full record

ReviewBMC immunology2017

Wound healing: time to look for intelligent, 'natural' immunological approaches?

Olivier Garraud, Wael N Hozzein, Gamal Badr

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BMC immunology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed
4.5field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

33 citing papers in PubMed, 88 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Application ofMolecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  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 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Olivier GarraudGIMAP-EA3064, Faculty of medicine of Saint-Etienne, University of Lyon, 42023, Saint-Etienne, France. ogarraud@ints.fr.
Wael N HozzeinBioproducts Research Chair, Department of Zoology, College of Science, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Gamal BadrLaboratory of Immunology and Molecular Physiology, Zoology Department, Faculty of Science, Assiut University, 71516, Assiut, Egypt.
Assiut University · EGKing Saud University · SAUniversité Claude Bernard Lyon 1 · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There is now good evidence that cytokines and growth factors are key factors in tissue repair and often exert anti-infective activities. However, engineering such factors for global use, even in the most remote places, is not realistic. Instead, we propose to examine how such factors work and to evaluate the reparative tools generously provided by 'nature.' We used two approaches to address these objectives. The first approach was to reappraise the internal capacity of the factors contributing the most to healing in the body, i.e., blood platelets. The second was to revisit natural agents such as whey proteins, (honey) bee venom and propolis. The platelet approach elucidates the inflammation spectrum from physiology to pathology, whereas milk and honey derivatives accelerate diabetic wound healing. Thus, this review aims at offering a fresh view of how wound healing can be addressed by natural means.

Indexed as

AnimalsBee VenomsBlood PlateletsHumansPropolisWhey ProteinsWound HealingBee VenomsPropolisWhey ProteinsBee venomDiabetesHealing factorsPlateletsPropolisWhey proteinsWound

Identifiers

PMID28681702
PMCPMC5499069
OpenAlexW2653564859

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.