SynthesisInternational wound journal2025
Comparative Efficacy of Autolytic and Collagenase-Based Enzymatic Debridement in Chronic Wound Healing: A Comprehensive Systematic Review.
Synthesis in International wound journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Comparative effectiveness of debridement strategies for chronic lower-extremity wounds: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Pooled it
- Wound Debridement with Copper Oxide Dressings: Bridging the Gap Between Clinical Observations and the Basic Science Underlying Endogenous Autolysis.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2026Article
- The dual role of the microbiome in chronic wound management.Cell communication and signaling : CCS · 2026Review
- Cutting-Edge Smart Hydrogel Platforms for Improved Wound Healing.Pharmaceutics · 2026Review
- An In Vitro Study on the Efficacy of Green Synthesized Silver Nanoparticles on Surgical Site Infections and Healings.Biomedicines · 2026Article
- Double Flap Tibial Transverse Transport Improves Microcirculation and Peripheral Nerve Function in Severe Diabetic Foot Ulcers.International wound journal · 2026Article
- Proteolytic enzymes from Bacillus subtilis AB2 as antibiofilm adjuvants: Bioprocess optimization, mechanistic insights, and synergy with antibiotics.Journal of microbiology (Seoul, Korea) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Chronic wounds, including diabetic foot ulcers, pressure ulcers, and burn injuries, present significant challenges for healthcare systems, with debridement being crucial for healing. This review compares the efficacy of autolytic and enzymatic debridement techniques. The objective was to assess clinical outcomes related to both methods, focusing on wound size reduction, granulation tissue formation, epithelialisation, complete healing, and adverse events. A systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) was performed across multiple databases, identifying five eligible studies involving 236 patients. Results indicated that enzymatic debridement was more effective, showing faster wound size reduction in four out of five studies, with Baloorkar et al. reporting a 65% size reduction compared to 50% for autolytic debridement (p < 0.05). Granulation tissue formation and epithelialisation rates were also significantly higher with enzymatic methods. Complete healing occurred in 65% of cases using enzymatic debridement versus 50% for autolytic methods (p = 0.04). Mild irritation was the most common adverse event noted in the enzymatic group. In conclusion, enzymatic debridement proved to be superior for severe wounds, while autolytic debridement remains beneficial for less severe cases due to its non-invasive nature. Both methods were well tolerated, but further research is needed for definitive clinical guidelines.
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.