Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38392327›Full record

ReviewBiology2024

Bacterial Biofilm in Chronic Wounds and Possible Therapeutic Approaches.

Ilaria Cavallo, Francesca Sivori, Arianna Mastrofrancesco, Elva Abril, Martina Pontone, Enea Gino Di Domenico, Fulvia Pimpinelli

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Biology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 101 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
101citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

101 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

41 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

7 authors.

Ilaria CavalloMicrobiology and Virology Unit, San Gallicano Dermatological Institute IRCSS, 00144 Rome, Italy.
Francesca SivoriMicrobiology and Virology Unit, San Gallicano Dermatological Institute IRCSS, 00144 Rome, Italy.
Arianna MastrofrancescoMicrobiology and Virology Unit, San Gallicano Dermatological Institute IRCSS, 00144 Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-1231-3832
Elva AbrilMicrobiology and Virology Unit, San Gallicano Dermatological Institute IRCSS, 00144 Rome, Italy.
Martina PontoneMicrobiology and Virology Unit, San Gallicano Dermatological Institute IRCSS, 00144 Rome, Italy.
Enea Gino Di DomenicoDepartment of Biology and Biotechnology "C. Darwin", Sapienza University of Rome, 00185 Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-6295-6006
Fulvia PimpinelliMicrobiology and Virology Unit, San Gallicano Dermatological Institute IRCSS, 00144 Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-8321-4455

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Wound repair and skin regeneration is a very complex orchestrated process that is generally composed of four phases: hemostasis, inflammation, proliferation, and remodeling. Each phase involves the activation of different cells and the production of various cytokines, chemokines, and other inflammatory mediators affecting the immune response. The microbial skin composition plays an important role in wound healing. Indeed, skin commensals are essential in the maintenance of the epidermal barrier function, regulation of the host immune response, and protection from invading pathogenic microorganisms. Chronic wounds are common and are considered a major public health problem due to their difficult-to-treat features and their frequent association with challenging chronic infections. These infections can be very tough to manage due to the ability of some bacteria to produce multicellular structures encapsulated into a matrix called biofilms. The bacterial species contained in the biofilm are often different, as is their capability to influence the healing of chronic wounds. Biofilms are, in fact, often tolerant and resistant to antibiotics and antiseptics, leading to the failure of treatment. For these reasons, biofilms impede appropriate treatment and, consequently, prolong the wound healing period. Hence, there is an urgent necessity to deepen the knowledge of the pathophysiology of delayed wound healing and to develop more effective therapeutic approaches able to restore tissue damage. This work covers the wound-healing process and the pathogenesis of chronic wounds infected by biofilm-forming pathogens. An overview of the strategies to counteract biofilm formation or to destroy existing biofilms is also provided.

Indexed as

anti-biofilm therapeutic approachesbiofilmchronic wound infectionschronic woundsskin microbiotawound healing

Identifiers

PMID38392327
PMCPMC10886835

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.