Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35381119›Full record

ArticleWound repair and regeneration : official publication of the Wound Healing Society [and] the European Tissue Repair Society2022

Wound fluid sampling methods for proteomic studies: A scoping review.

Joe Harvey, Kieran T Mellody, Nicky Cullum, Rachel E B Watson, Jo Dumville

Open access · hybridAbstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Wound repair and regeneration : official publication of the Wound Healing Society [and] the European Tissue Repair Society, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 16% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. A simplified method for monitoring cytokines in wound fluid.Wound repair and regeneration : official publication of the Wound Healing Society [and] the European Tissue Repair Society · 2023
    Article
  9. Wound fluid sampling methods for proteomic studies: A scoping review.Wound repair and regeneration : official publication of the Wound Healing Society [and] the European Tissue Repair Society · 2022
    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

5 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.

Joe HarveyCentre for Dermatology Research, School of Biological Sciences, The University of Manchester & Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-9047-5672
Kieran T MellodyCentre for Dermatology Research, School of Biological Sciences, The University of Manchester & Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, UK.
Nicky CullumNIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK.
Rachel E B WatsonCentre for Dermatology Research, School of Biological Sciences, The University of Manchester & Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, UK.
Jo DumvilleNIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK.
Manchester Academic Health Science Centre · GB

Funding

Department of Health IS-BRC-1215-20007
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Understanding why some wounds are hard to heal is important for improving care and developing more effective treatments. The method of sample collection used is an integral step in the research process and thus may affect the results obtained. The primary objective of this study was to summarise and map the methods currently used to sample wound fluid for protein profiling and analysis. Eligible studies were those that used a sampling method to collect wound fluid from any human wound for analysis of proteins. A search for eligible studies was performed using MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL Plus in May 2020. All references were screened for eligibility by one reviewer, followed by discussion and consensus with a second reviewer. Quantitative data were mapped and visualised using appropriate software and summarised via a narrative summary. After screening, 280 studies were included in this review. The most commonly used group of wound fluid collection methods were vacuum, drainage or use of other external devices, with surgical wounds being the most common sample source. Other frequently used collection methods were extraction from absorbent materials, collection beneath an occlusive dressing and direct collection of wound fluid. This scoping review highlights the variety of methods used for wound fluid collection. Many studies had small sample sizes and short sample collection periods; these weaknesses have hampered the discovery and validation of novel biomarkers. Future research should aim to assess the reproducibility and feasibility of sampling and analytical methods for use in larger longitudinal studies.

Indexed as

ProteomicsWound HealingDrainageHumansReproducibility of Resultscomplex woundsurgical woundwound biomarkerwound fluid collectionwound proteomics

Identifiers

PMID35381119
PMCPMC9322564
OpenAlexW4224074718

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.