ArticleFrontiers in public health2025
Malignant fungating wounds assessment in palliative care: a scoping review.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 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.
- Multidisciplinary Management of Complicated Locally Advanced and Fungating Breast Cancer: A Narrative Review.Cancers · 2026Review
- The Role of Powerlessness in Self-Management Behaviours Among Patients with Malignant Fungating Wounds: A Cross-Sectional Study.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2026Article
- Healing-assessment tools for perineal and cesarean section wounds in postpartum women: A scoping review.Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Malignant fungating wounds (MFWs) are secondary chronic wounds resulting from malignant cell proliferation and migration, compromising skin integrity in patients with cancer. These wounds present a range of signs and symptoms. Although several instruments are used in their assessment, it is still unclear which tool is most appropriate for comprehensive evaluation and wound healing. Aim: To review the existing instruments for MFW assessment, highlighting their strengths and limitations. Methods: A scoping review was conducted following the Arksey and O'Malley framework (2005), the Joanna Briggs Institute guidelines (2020, 2021), and the PRISMA-ScR checklist (2018). The search was performed on four databases: Web of Science, Scopus, PubMed, and EBSCO. Results: Forty studies were included, describing 22 instruments. They described half targeted general symptoms, and half wound-related signs and symptoms. Four instruments were specifically designed for MFWs, all based on the Malignant Wound Assessment Tool (MWAT). These were: MWAT - Clinical; MWAT- wound bed status; MWAT- Perception; MWAT - Research. However, only the Clinical and Research versions were validated in English, but neither was subjected to psychometric validation, and lacked a comprehensive assessment, such as key symptoms. Conclusion: Despite the existence of specific tools for MFW assessment, a comprehensive, validated, and standardized tool is still lacking. While the Clinical and the Research versions of the MWAT offer a broad assessment of MFWs, they require refinement to address overlooked symptoms and validation in other languages. Establishing standardized, multidimensional measures could enhance clinical decision-making and improve outcomes for patients living with MFWs.
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.