Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32786390›Full record

ArticleACS sensors2020

Naing Tun Thet, June Mercer-Chalmers, Rosemary J Greenwood, Amber E R Young, Karen Coy, Simon Booth, Anthony Sack, Andrew T A Jenkins

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in ACS sensors, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
3.8field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 47 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Advances in the Sensing and Treatment of Wound Biofilms.Angewandte Chemie (Weinheim an der Bergstrasse, Germany) · 2022
    Review
  7. Advances in the Sensing and Treatment of Wound Biofilms.Angewandte Chemie (International ed. in English) · 2022
    Review
  8. Surgical Revision Promotes Presence of Enterococcus spp. in Abdominal Superficial Surgical Site Infections.Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2022
    Article
  9. Review
  10. 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

8 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Naing Tun ThetChemistry Department, University of Bath, Bath BA2 7AY, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-3853-1486
June Mercer-ChalmersChemistry Department, University of Bath, Bath BA2 7AY, United Kingdom.
Rosemary J GreenwoodBristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol BS2 8AE, United Kingdom.
Amber E R YoungBristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol BS2 8AE, United Kingdom.
Karen CoyChildren's Burn Research Centre, University Hospital Bristol NHS Foundation Trust, University of Bristol, Bristol BS2 8BJ, United Kingdom.
Simon BoothQueen Victoria Hospital, Holtye Rd, East Grinstead RH19 3DZ, United Kingdom.
Anthony SackSouthmead Hospital, Southmead Rd, Bristol BS10 5NB, North Bristol, United Kingdom.
Andrew T A JenkinsChemistry Department, University of Bath, Bath BA2 7AY, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-8981-3029
University of Bath · GBUniversity Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust · GBQueen Victoria Hospital · GBSouthmead Hospital · GBUniversity of Bristol · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_PC_14122Medical Research Council MR/N006496/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Wound infection is commonly observed after surgery and trauma but is difficult to diagnose and poorly defined in terms of objective clinical parameters. The assumption that bacteria in a wound correlate with infection is false; all wounds contain microorganisms, but not all wounds are clinically infected. This makes it difficult for clinicians to determine true wound infection, especially in wounds with pathogenic biofilms. If an infection is not properly treated, pathogenic virulence factors, such as rhamnolipids from

Indexed as

Point-of-Care SystemsWound InfectionAnimalsBiofilmsPseudomonas aeruginosaStaphylococcus aureusSwinebacterial infectionbiofilmfluorescent dyeinfection detectionliposomespoint-of-carewounds

Identifiers

PMID32786390
PMCPMC7460538
OpenAlexW3046372938

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.