Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38791717›Full record

ReviewAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI2024

The Best Protocol to Treat Equine Skin Wounds by Second Intention Healing: A Scoping Review of the Literature.

Gesiane Ribeiro, Lúcia Carvalho, João Borges, José Prazeres

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Animals : an open access journal from MDPI, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Effect ofVeterinary and animal science · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. 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.

Gesiane RibeiroFaculty of Veterinary Medicine, Lusófona University, Campo Grande 376, 1749-024 Lisbon, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0001-5265-4936
Lúcia CarvalhoFaculty of Veterinary Medicine, Lusófona University, Campo Grande 376, 1749-024 Lisbon, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0002-2039-5893
João BorgesFaculty of Veterinary Medicine, Lusófona University, Campo Grande 376, 1749-024 Lisbon, Portugal.
José PrazeresFaculty of Veterinary Medicine, Lusófona University, Campo Grande 376, 1749-024 Lisbon, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0002-5423-2910

Funding

Universidade Lusófona project: WOUNDHEALFAST
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Equine skin wound treatment continues to be a challenge for veterinarians. Despite being a frequent practice, it remains difficult to choose an evidence-based treatment protocol. This study aimed to comprehensively explore the literature and provide a scoping review of therapeutic strategies for equine skin wounds and identify knowledge gaps and opportunities for future research. This review was conducted using specific criteria to select literature that described methods to manage second intention wound healing. After removing duplicates and screening papers for suitability, 81 manuscripts were included for data extraction. Of these, 59 articles were experimental studies, 10 were case reports, 9 were case series, and 3 were clinical studies. The most frequent wound location was the distal limbs. Macroscopic assessment was the main tool used to evaluate treatment effectiveness. All of the case reports, case series, and clinical studies reported positive outcomes with regard to the treatment used, while only 36% of the experimental studies found significant healing improvement in treated wounds compared to control groups. It was found that there are many treatments that have exhibited controversial results, and there exists a lack of evidence for the adoption of specific treatment protocols.

Indexed as

equine wound healingequine wound managementexuberant granulation tissuehorses

Identifiers

PMID38791717
PMCPMC11117370

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.