ReviewJournal of biomedical optics2025
Light-based therapy of infected wounds: a review of dose considerations for photodynamic microbial inactivation and photobiomodulation.
Review in Journal of biomedical optics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Research on Silver-Based Wound Dressing: An Ontological Analysis.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- An Update on the Correlation Between Neuroimmunomodulation, Photodynamic Therapy (PDT), and Wound Healing: The Role of Mast Cells.Biomedicines · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Significance: Chronic or surgical wound infections in healthcare remain a worldwide problem without satisfying options. Systemic or topical antibiotic use is an inadequate solution, given the increase in antimicrobial-resistant microbes. Hence, antibiotic-free alternatives are needed. Antimicrobial photodynamic inactivation (aPDI) has been shown to be effective in wound disinfection. Among the impediments to the wide utility of aPDI for wounds is the high variability in reported photosensitizer and light dose to be effective and unintentional detrimental impact on the wound closure rates. Additionally, the time required by the healthcare professional to deliver this therapy is excessive in the present form of delivery. Aim: We reviewed the dose ranges for various photosensitizers required to achieve wound disinfection or sterilization while not unintentionally inhibiting wound closure through concomitant photobiomodulation (PBM) processes. Approach: To allow comparison of aPDI or PBM administered doses, we employ a unified dose concept based on the number of absorbed photons per unit volume by the photosensitizer or cytochrome C oxidase for aPDI and PBM, respectively. Results: One notes that for current aPDI protocols, the absorbed photons per unit volume for wound disinfection or sterilization can lead to inhibiting normal wound closure through PBM processes. Conclusion: Options to reduce the dose discrepancy between effective aPDI and PBM are discussed.
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.