ArticleBMJ open2024
Accuracy of digital measurement for quantitative and qualitative indicators of wound healing and repair: a systematic review protocol.
Article in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionChronic wound care remains a critical public health challenge in terms of prevalence, quality of life and healthcare costs on a global scale. Currently used methods to assess the size and content of wounds include direct contact techniques based on double-layer film, ruler measurements, digital photography and visual examination. Nowadays, despite these evaluations, close monitoring and tracking of these chronic wounds remain a great challenge. The use of telemonitoring through digital measurement tools may offer a potential means of improving healing management processes. Many studies have evaluated the size and content of the wound through digital devices such as mobile phones and computers. However, the clinical accuracy of these tools remains to be clarified. The objective of this systematic review is to assess and consolidate the current state-of-the-art digital devices for both quantitative (length, width, surface area, perimeter, volume and depth) and qualitative (granulation, fibrin, necrosis and slough) indicators of wound care. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will include studies using digital measurement methods from databases such as EBSCO, Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Web of Science and EMBASE, limited to French and English publications until November 15, 2023. Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis guidelines, selection involves two independent reviewers conducting title and abstract screenings, study selections, data extractions and risk-of-bias assessments using QUADAS-2. Discrepancies will be resolved through discussion or a third reviewer. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Primary data will not be collected in this study; thus, ethical approval will not be required. The study's findings will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42023396642.
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.