Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37455090›Full record

ArticleInternational wound journal2023

Methods for sampling wound fluid from venous leg ulcers for molecular analyses: A scoping review.

Jodi Christine McDaniel, Bohyun Kim, Dina Rose McGowan

Open access · goldAbstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

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 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 24% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Jodi Christine McDanielCollege of Nursing, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, USA.
Bohyun KimCollege of Nursing, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, USA.
Dina Rose McGowanClinical Research Center, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, Ohio, USA.
The Ohio State University · USThe Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Determining the precise role of molecular factors present in venous leg ulcer exudate will expedite the identification of biomarkers that can optimally guide treatment. However, there is now no standardized approach for collecting, processing and storing wound fluid samples for molecular analyses. This scoping review was conducted to integrate and summarize the multiple types of methods being used currently in studies of venous leg ulcers for collecting, processing and storing wound fluid prior to analysis. PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE and Scopus databases were searched for eligible studies between 2012 and 2022. Nineteen studies were selected for this scoping review. Five primary methodological categories for wound fluid sampling were identified. The most commonly used collection method involved extracting the fluid from various absorbent materials, and the majority of studies centrifuged wound fluid before storing it at ultra-low temperatures. This review found the wound fluid sampling methods among the included studies to be heterogeneous. Moreover, the data revealed no definitive patterns. There is a critical need to develop standardized wound fluid sampling methods in research to facilitate accurate comparisons of biomarker data across studies and a more rapid determination of biomarkers that can most effectively guide delivery of tailored venous leg ulcer treatments.

Indexed as

Varicose UlcerWound HealingBandages, HydrocolloidBiomarkersHumansBiomarkersvenous leg ulcerswound biomarkerwound fluidwound fluid sampling methods

Identifiers

PMID37455090
PMCPMC10681520
OpenAlexW4384466811

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.