Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34150786›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in medicine2021

Comparison Between Cultivation and Sequencing Based Approaches for Microbiota Analysis in Swabs and Biopsies of Chronic Wounds.

Aleksander Mahnic, Vesna Breznik, Maja Bombek Ihan, Maja Rupnik

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in medicine, 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
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Insights into ecology, pathogenesis, and biofilm formation ofMicrobiology and molecular biology reviews : MMBR · 2025
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Deciphering microbiome and fungi-bacteria interactions in chronic wound infections using metagenomic sequencing.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2024
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Science advances · 2024
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. The Skin Microbiome: Current Landscape and Future Opportunities.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. What is slough? Defining the proteomic and microbial composition of slough and its implications for wound healing.Wound repair and regeneration : official publication of the Wound Healing Society [and] the European Tissue Repair Society
    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

4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Aleksander MahnicNational Laboratory for Health, Environment, and Food, Department for Microbiological Research, Maribor, Slovenia.
Vesna BreznikDepartment of Dermatology and Venereal Diseases, University Medical Centre Maribor, Maribor, Slovenia.
Maja Bombek IhanNational Laboratory for Health, Environment, and Food, Department for Medical Microbiology, Maribor, Slovenia.
Maja RupnikNational Laboratory for Health, Environment, and Food, Department for Microbiological Research, Maribor, Slovenia.
National Laboratory of Health, Environment and Food · SIUniversity Clinical Centre Maribor · SIUniversity of Maribor · SI

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Chronic wounds are a prominent health concern affecting 0.2% of individuals in the Western population. Microbial colonization and the consequent infection contribute significantly to the healing process. We have compared two methods, cultivation and 16S amplicon sequencing (16S-AS), for the characterization of bacterial populations in both swabs and biopsy tissues obtained from 45 chronic wounds. Using cultivation approach, we detected a total of 39 bacterial species, on average 2.89 per sample (SD = 1.93), compared to 5.9 (SD = 7.1) operational taxonomic units per sample obtained with 16S-AS. The concordance in detected bacteria between swab and biopsy specimens obtained from the same CWs was greater when using cultivation (58.4%) as compared to 16S-AS (25%). In the entire group of 45 biopsy samples concordance in detected bacterial genera between 16S-AS and cultivation-based approach was 36.4% and in swab samples 28.7%. Sequencing proved advantageous in comparison to the cultivation mainly in case of highly diverse microbial communities, where we could additionally detect numerous obligate and facultative anaerobic bacteria from genera

Indexed as

16S amplicon sequencingbiopsychronic woundCorynebacteriumcultivationswabwound microbiology

Identifiers

PMID34150786
PMCPMC8211761
OpenAlexW3172800073

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.