ArticleInternational wound journal2023
Researching the level of agreement among experts on terms used to describe wounds: An international study.
Article in International wound journal, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Toward Objective Wound Edge Classification in Clinical Practice.Experimental dermatology · 2026Article
- [What are wound coatings? A position paper from the Initiative Chronische Wunden (ICW) e. V.]Dermatologie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2025Review
- HEALS-A and GRADES: Novel Histological and Clinical Scales for Assessing Skin Regeneration in Murine Wound Healing Models.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Researching the level of agreement among experts on terms used to describe wounds: An international study.International wound journal · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Establishing a common language that allows univocal and objective communication in describing wounds and their healing is of utmost importance in defining the diagnostic hypothesis and proper wound management. To measure the level of agreement on the description of wounds, an international study was performed among experts of different professional backgrounds on several common terms used to describe ulcerative lesions. A panel of 27 wound care experts anonymously completed a multiple-choice questionnaire on 100 images of 50 ulcerative lesions. The participants were asked to describe each image using a set of pre-defined terms. An expert data analyst interpreted the questionnaires to map the level of agreement on the used terminology. Our findings show a very low level of agreement among experts in using the proposed terminology to describe the wound bed, the wound edge, and the surrounding skin conditions. Efforts should be planned to find a consensus on the correct use of terminology for wound description. To this aim, partnership, consensus, and agreement with educators in medicine and nursing are necessary.
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.