ReviewBurns & trauma2019
Iatrogenic wounds: a common but often overlooked problem.
Review in Burns & trauma, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy and safety of epidermal cell regeneration for postoperative non-healing wounds: a randomized, partially blinded, parallel-controlled trial.Stem cell research & therapy · 2025Trial
- Frequency-Dependent Bioimpedance Signatures of Ocular Tissues in Intact Ex Vivo Eyes Under Simulated Surgical Conditions.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- The Categorization of Perinatal Derivatives for Orthopedic Applications.Biomedicines · 2024Review
- Consensus on the prevention and repair of titanium mesh exposed wound after cranioplasty (2024 edition).Burns & trauma · 2024Article
- Role of Implantable Drug Delivery Devices with Dual Platform Capabilities in the Prevention and Treatment of Bacterial Osteomyelitis.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Robot-assisted surgery in total knee arthroplasty: trauma maker or trauma savior? A prospective, randomized cohort study.Burns & trauma · 2022Article
- Article
- Therapeutic strategies for chronic wound infection.Chinese journal of traumatology = Zhonghua chuang shang za zhi · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Iatrogenic wounds are a common but often overlooked concept. They can lead to increases in hospital stays, therapy costs, repeat surgeries, and implant removal. If not handled properly, these wounds have a very poor prognosis and will cause serious physical and psychological harm to patients, which may result in medicolegal disputes. In recent years, the incidence of iatrogenic wounds has increased because of (1) an increase in the population of older people owing to increased life expectancy, (2) the continued expansion of surgical indications, (3) an increase in difficult surgeries, and (4) the constant emergence and application of new implantable biomaterials and other therapies. Thus, there is a pressing clinical need to improve the therapy of iatrogenic wounds. However, the difficulty in treating these wounds is considerable due to the emergence of drug-resistant bacteria, the high number of patients with metabolic diseases, and complex complications in patients. In particular, iatrogenic wounds caused by surgical site infections due to implantable biomaterials could lead to material leakage and conflicts regarding whether to retain or remove the implants. This review provides a definition of iatrogenic wounds, describes their characteristics, classifies them, and provides information about the importance of analyzing iatrogenic wounds. We hope that this review will provide useful information for the diagnosis and treatment of iatrogenic wounds and help to reduce their incidence in the future.
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.