ReviewPharmaceutics2024
Translational Challenges in Drug Therapy and Delivery Systems for Treating Chronic Lower Extremity Wounds.
Review in Pharmaceutics, 2024. 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.
- Advances in Smart Responsive Nanofibers for Wound Healing.Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Scaffold-mediated miRNA-155 inhibition promotes regenerative macrophage polarisation leading to anti-inflammatory, angiogenic and neurogenic responses for wound healing.Bioactive materials · 2026Article
- Approaching Scarless Wound Healing: From Passive Anti-Fibrotic to Proactive and Programmable Pro-Regenerative Strategies.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2026Review
- Maximizing the therapeutic benefits of biopolymer-derived nanoparticles in wound healing.Iranian journal of basic medical sciences · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Despite several promising preclinical studies performed over the past two decades, there remains a paucity of market-approved drugs to treat chronic lower extremity wounds in humans. This translational gap challenges our understanding of human chronic lower extremity wounds and the design of wound treatments. Current targeted drug treatments and delivery systems for lower extremity wounds rely heavily on preclinical animal models meant to mimic human chronic wounds. However, there are several key differences between animal preclinical wound models and the human chronic wound microenvironment, which can impact the design of targeted drug treatments and delivery systems. To explore these differences, this review delves into recent new drug technologies and delivery systems designed to address the chronic wound microenvironment. It also highlights preclinical models used to test drug treatments specific for the wound microenvironments of lower extremity diabetic, venous, ischemic, and burn wounds. We further discuss key differences between preclinical wound models and human chronic wounds that may impact successful translational drug treatment design.
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.