ArticleJournal of community hospital internal medicine perspectives2017
The mythos of laudable pus along with an explanation for its origin.
Article in Journal of community hospital internal medicine perspectives, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- The rat as an animal model in chronic wound research: An update.Life sciences · 2024Review
- Bruno da Longobucco (da Longoburgo): The first academic surgeon in the Middle Ages.Frontiers in surgery · 2022Review
- Joint infection: a forbidden diagnosis?Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2021Article
- Carcinogenesis: Failure of resolution of inflammation?Pharmacology & therapeutics · 2021Review
- Two Masters of Surgery in Parma during the Middle Ages.Acta bio-medica : Atenei Parmensis · 2020Article
- The history of intracranial infections.Child's nervous system : ChNS : official journal of the International Society for Pediatric Neurosurgery · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The presence of pus is one of the most easily recognizable signs of an infection. However, for several centuries suppuration, known as 'laudable pus,' was believed to be a sign of a healthy, healing wound. This historical misconception can be explained by the difference in the presentation of a necrotizing soft tissue infection versus other more common skin and soft tissue infections. Chronic wound infections, due to pyogenic bacteria, typically produce large amounts of thick, whitish-yellow pus. On the other hand, necrotizing soft tissue infections, despite their severe mortality and morbidity, are devoid of pus in the traditional sense. What the ancient medical observers recognized was the fact that pus is not characteristic of this subset of incredibly severe infections. This is an important distinction to remember when evaluating an infection, even today.
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.