Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30291466›Full record

ReviewEuropean journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology2019

The downside of antimicrobial agents for wound healing.

Apirujee Punjataewakupt, Supamas Napavichayanun, Pornanong Aramwit

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 77 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
77citing papers in PubMed
6.7field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

77 citing papers in PubMed, 171 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Integrating in vivo and in silico: a comprehensive study of Helix aspersa mucin's therapeutic properties.International microbiology : the official journal of the Spanish Society for Microbiology · 2026
    Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review

17 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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 1 institution in 1 country.

Apirujee PunjataewakuptBioactive Resources for Innovative Clinical Applications Research Unit and Department of Pharmacy Practice, Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, 10330, Thailand.
Supamas NapavichayanunBioactive Resources for Innovative Clinical Applications Research Unit and Department of Pharmacy Practice, Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, 10330, Thailand.
Pornanong AramwitBioactive Resources for Innovative Clinical Applications Research Unit and Department of Pharmacy Practice, Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, 10330, Thailand. aramwit@gmail.com.
Chulalongkorn University · TH

Funding

Thailand Research Fund through the Research and Researcher for Industry Programme (RRi) PHD58I0006
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The use of topical antimicrobials is beneficial for infection control in wound care because wound infection is the major cause of delayed healing. The advantages of topical over systemic antimicrobials include a higher concentration at the target site, fewer systemic adverse effects, and a lower incidence of antimicrobial resistance. Nowadays, topical antimicrobials are divided into three groups: disinfectants, antiseptics, and antibiotics. Only antiseptics and antibiotics can be applied to living skin; therefore, this review will focus only on these groups. The advantages of each topical antimicrobial are well established; however, their disadvantages remain prominent. It is widely known that antiseptics show higher cytotoxicity and a broader spectrum of activity than antibiotics, whereas antibiotics show a higher probability of bacterial resistance development. However, there are still many adverse effects, resulting from each topical antimicrobial. This review aims to summarize the possible adverse effects of commonly used antiseptics (biguanide, silver, iodine, chlorine compounds, and other antiseptics), antibiotics (bacitracin, mafenide, mupirocin, neomycin, and silver sulfadiazine), and natural antimicrobials (curcumin and honey). Moreover, the antimicrobials that should be avoided in particular populations are also summarized in this review in order to increase awareness for antimicrobial selection in those populations.

Indexed as

Anti-Infective Agents, LocalBacterial InfectionsHumansWound HealingWound InfectionAnti-Infective Agents, LocalAdverse effectTopical antimicrobialsToxicityWounds

Identifiers

PMID30291466
OpenAlexW2895559260

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.