Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40159332›Full record

SynthesisInternational wound journal2025

Comparative Efficacy of Autolytic and Collagenase-Based Enzymatic Debridement in Chronic Wound Healing: A Comprehensive Systematic Review.

Ali Amadeh, Negin Mohebbi, Zahra Amadeh, Amirreza Jamshidbeigi

Abstract readSystematic ReviewComparative Study
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. The dual role of the microbiome in chronic wound management.Cell communication and signaling : CCS · 2026
    Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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.

Ali AmadehDepartment of Nursing, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Karaj Branch, Islamic Azad University, Karaj, Iran.
Negin MohebbiDepartment of Nursing, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Karaj Branch, Islamic Azad University, Karaj, Iran.
Zahra AmadehStudent Research Committee, faculty of Nursing and Midwifery, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran.
Amirreza JamshidbeigiGhouchan School of Nursing, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3904-3158

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

CollagenasesDebridementDiabetic FootPressure UlcerWound HealingAdultAgedChronic DiseaseFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicTreatment OutcomeCollagenasesautolytic debridementchronic woundsdebridementenzymatic debridementrandomised controlled trialswound healing

Identifiers

PMID40159332
PMCPMC11955274

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.