Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33236843›Full record

ArticleInternational wound journal2021

Effectiveness of ultrasonic debridement on reduction of bacteria and biofilm in patients with chronic wounds: A scoping review.

Yukie Kataoka, Mao Kunimitsu, Gojiro Nakagami, Sofoklis Koudounas, Carolina D Weller, Hiromi Sanada

Open access · hybridAbstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in International wound journal, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 43 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. What's New in Wound Healing: Treatment Advances and Microbial Insights.American journal of clinical dermatology · 2025
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. MethodsX · 2022
    Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

6 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Yukie KataokaDepartment of Gerontological Nursing/Wound Care Management, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7201-7253
Mao KunimitsuDepartment of Gerontological Nursing/Wound Care Management, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan.
Gojiro NakagamiDepartment of Gerontological Nursing/Wound Care Management, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9650-2464
Sofoklis KoudounasDivision of Care Innovation, Global Nursing Research Center, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3915-2322
Carolina D WellerMonash Nursing and Midwifery, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8016-1060
Hiromi SanadaDepartment of Gerontological Nursing/Wound Care Management, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1912-1251
Tokyo Health Care University · JPJapan Society for the Promotion of Science · JPMonash University · AUThe University of Tokyo · JP

Funding

JSPS KAKENHI 20H04010
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Chronic wounds are defined as "hard-to-heal" wounds that are caused by disordered mechanisms of wound healing. Chronic wounds have a high risk of infection and can form biofilms, leading to the release of planktonic bacteria, which causes persistent infections locally or remotely. Therefore, infection control and removal of the biofilm in chronic wounds are essential. Recently, ultrasonic debridement was introduced as a new method to reduce infection and promote the healing of chronic wounds. This scoping review aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of ultrasonic debridement on the changes in bacteria and biofilms, and consequently the wound healing rate of chronic wounds. A total of 1021 articles were identified through the database search, and nine papers were eligible for inclusion. Findings suggest that non-contact devices are useful for wound healing as they reduce the inflammatory response, although the bacterial load is not significantly changed. Ultrasonic debridement devices that require direct contact with the wound promote wound healing through reduction of biofilm or bacterial load. The optimum settings for ultrasonic debridement using a non-contact device are relatively consistent, but the settings for devices that require direct contact are diverse. Further studies on ultrasonic debridement in chronic wounds are required.

Indexed as

BiofilmsUltrasonicsBacteriaDebridementHumansfoot ulcerleg ulcerpressure ulcerultrasoundwound healing

Identifiers

PMID33236843
PMCPMC8244003
OpenAlexW3110120239

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.