ArticlePediatric dermatology2021
Characterization of wound microbes in epidermolysis bullosa: Results from the epidermolysis bullosa clinical characterization and outcomes database.
Article in Pediatric dermatology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 28 citations in OpenAlex.
- An Acid-Oxidising Solution Containing Hypochlorous Acid Reduces Staphylococcus aureus and Improves Bacterial Diversity in Epidermolysis Bullosa Wounds.Experimental dermatology · 2025Trial
- Treatment Landscape for Epidermolysis Bullosa Simplex: A Review of Established and Emerging Therapies.Pediatric dermatology · 2026Review
- Characterisation of the wound microbiome and antimicrobial resistance profiles in clinical isolates from epidermolysis bullosa patients.Orphanet journal of rare diseases · 2026Article
- Results of a non-randomized, open-label phase I study evaluating the novel immunomodulatory peptide TCP-25 for treatment of dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa.Orphanet journal of rare diseases · 2025Article
- Unveiling the value of C-reactive protein as a severity biomarker and the IL4/IL13 pathway as a therapeutic target in recessive dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa: A multiparametric cross-sectional study.Experimental dermatology · 2024Article
- Skin Microbial Composition and Genetic Mutation Analysis in Precision Medicine for Epidermolysis Bullosa.Current drug targets · 2024Review
- Epidermolysis bullosa in a mother-infant dyad.Oxford medical case reports · 2023Article
- Staphylococcal Infections and Neonatal Skin: Data from Literature and Suggestions for the Clinical Management from Four Challenging Patients.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Longitudinal study of wound healing status and bacterial colonisation of Staphylococcus aureus and Corynebacterium diphtheriae in epidermolysis bullosa patients.International wound journal · 2023Article
- Keratins as an Inflammation Trigger Point in Epidermolysis Bullosa Simplex.International journal of molecular sciences · 2021Review
- A Review of Acquired Autoimmune Blistering Diseases in Inherited Epidermolysis Bullosa: Implications for the Future of Gene Therapy.Antibodies (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
- Impaired Wound Healing, Fibrosis, and Cancer: The Paradigm of Recessive Dystrophic Epidermolysis Bullosa.International journal of molecular sciences · 2021Review
- Dystrophic Epidermolysis Bullosa: Secondary Disease Mechanisms and Disease Modifiers.Frontiers in genetics · 2021Review
- Characterization of wound microbes in epidermolysis bullosa: A focus on Pseudomonas aeruginosa.Pediatric dermatologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
21 authors at 14 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectivesPatients with epidermolysis bullosa (EB) require care of wounds that are colonized or infected with bacteria. A subset of EB patients are at risk for squamous cell carcinoma, and bacterial-host interactions have been considered in this risk. The EB Clinical Characterization and Outcomes Database serves as a repository of information from EB patients at multiple centers in the United States and Canada. Access to this resource enabled broad-scale analysis of wound cultures.
methodsA retrospective analysis of 739 wound cultures from 158 patients from 13 centers between 2001 and 2018.
resultsOf 152 patients with a positive culture, Staphylococcus aureus (SA) was recovered from 131 patients (86%), Pseudomonas aeruginosa (PA) from 56 (37%), and Streptococcus pyogenes (GAS) from 34 (22%). Sixty-eight percent of patients had cultures positive for methicillin-sensitive SA, and 47%, methicillin-resistant SA (18 patients had cultures that grew both methicillin-susceptible and methicillin-resistant SA at different points in time). Of 15 patients with SA-positive cultures with recorded mupirocin susceptibility testing, 11 had mupirocin-susceptible SA and 6 patients mupirocin-resistant SA (2 patients grew both mupirocin-susceptible and mupirocin-resistant SA). SCC was reported in 23 patients in the entire database, of whom 10 had documented wound cultures positive for SA, PA, and Proteus species in 90%, 50%, and 20% of cases, respectively.
conclusionsSA and PA were the most commonly isolated bacteria from wounds. Methicillin resistance and mupirocin resistance were reported in 47% and 40% of patients tested, respectively, highlighting the importance of ongoing antimicrobial strategies to limit antibiotic resistance.
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.