SynthesisInternational wound journal2025
The Clinical Utility of Autofluorescence Imaging for Bacterial Detection in Wounds: A 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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Photoinduced Fluorescence Changes in Selected Bacterial Strains Under 405 nm Laser Excitation: An In Vitro Hue-Based Monitoring Approach.Micromachines · 2026Article
- Autofluorescence and deep learning in early disease detection: biological foundations, clinical applications, and future directions.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2026Review
- Bacterial Fluorescence Signals Predict Dermal Regeneration Template Integration Outcomes.Wound repair and regeneration : official publication of the Wound Healing Society [and] the European Tissue Repair SocietyObservational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This systematic review evaluated the clinical utility and diagnostic accuracy of autofluorescence imaging in detecting bacterial presence in wounds. A literature search was conducted in January 2025 across PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane, and EMBASE databases. Eligible studies included clinical trials and observational studies assessing autofluorescence imaging for wound bacterial detection. Seventeen studies were included; sixteen assessed the MolecuLight i:X device, and one evaluated PRODIGI. Autofluorescence imaging demonstrated higher accuracy than White Light and Clinical Signs and Symptoms-based assessment in detecting bacterial burden. Five studies highlighted its role in enhancing swabbing techniques, with fluorescence-guided sampling yielding higher bacterial counts than conventional methods. Ten studies reported significant bacterial reduction with autofluorescence-guided debridement. Six studies emphasized its role in refining treatment decisions and accelerating wound healing. Quality appraisal was undertaken using Evidence-Based Librarianship criteria, which deemed 10 studies valid, while 7 had limitations related to population representation. In conclusion, autofluorescence imaging enhances wound assessment by improving bacterial detection and may support more targeted clinical interventions. However, further research is needed to clarify its impact on infection control and long-term healing outcomes.
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.