Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40612809›Full record

ArticleCureus2025

Workflow of Healthcare Professionals Utilizing Fluorescence Imaging for Detecting Wound Bacterial Infections.

Shaun Carpenter, Andrew Rader

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. 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

2 authors.

Shaun CarpenterDepartment of Wound Medicine, MedCentris Wound Healing Institute, Hammond, USA.
Andrew RaderDepartment of Podiatric Medicine, Memorial Hospital and Health Care Center, Jasper, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background Many wound care specialists use fluorescence imaging (FLI) to complement the assessment of clinical signs and symptoms in the detection of wound infections, providing clinical value to patient management and healthcare economic benefits. Objectives To assist other wound care practices in adopting FLI technology, we addressed four key questions related to the activities essential for successful implementation: (1) Who is responsible for each activity? (2) How long does the overall imaging procedure take? (3) How much time does each activity require? (4) What patient and wound variables might influence the time needed for FLI? Methodology To answer these questions, surveys were collected via Qualtrics from eight physicians representing unique practices who had been trained on MolecuLight FLI (Toronto, ON, Canada) and had between 0.5 and 5 years of real-world patient experience with the technology. This study employed a cross-sectional, electronic survey design to evaluate physicians' experiences with FLI in wound care. Results The FLI workflow can be divided into 10 activities. In all practices, physicians are responsible for educating patients and obtaining informed consent. In most practices, physicians are responsible for all other activities related to FLI. The overall procedure requires an average of 28.8 minutes of physician time for a single wound. Patient variables affect procedure time. Conclusions Clinical and economic benefits, including the ability to modify wound treatment plans and reduce costs associated with managing infection-related complications, can be achieved with fluorescence imaging (FLI) to detect wound infections. This requires a relatively small time investment from physicians and is supported in some practices by nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs).

Indexed as

bacteriadiagnosisfluorescence imaginginfectionproceduresurveyworkflowwounds

Identifiers

PMID40612809
PMCPMC12225651

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.