ArticleRevista da Escola de Enfermagem da U S P2025
Infection assessment tools for acute and chronic wounds: a scoping review.
Article in Revista da Escola de Enfermagem da U S P, 2025. 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo map the tools available in the literature for assessing wound infection.
methodThis is a scoping review conducted from the Joana Briggs Institute Manual for Evidence Synthesis, in the databases of the Virtual Health Library, PubMed, Scopus, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature and the academic literature repository, Google Scholar. The research question was developed based on the acronym PCC (Population/Concept/Context), resulting in the following formulation: "Which tools available in the literature assess wound infections?"
resultsThe analysis included 32 wound infection assessment tools. Of these, 26 using clinical signs and symptoms of infection distributed across scales, checklists, classification systems, and completion forms were identified. In addition to these, 5 electronic devices and 01 software were identified.
conclusionThe diversity of instruments highlights the complexity of wound infection management, emphasizing the need to discuss their applicability, benefits, and limitations to select the best evidence-based instrument.
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.