ReviewChinese medical journal2025
Phage and enzyme therapies in wound infections: From lab to bedside.
Review in Chinese medical journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Bacteriophages in the treatment of cutaneous infections and skin disorders: therapeutic advances and future directions.Clinical microbiology reviews · 2026Review
- Regenerative Microbiology: Harnessing Bacterial Antagonism and Spatiotemporal Signaling for Diabetic Wound Repair.Smart medicine · 2026Review
- Evaluation of the Potential Efficacy of Bacteriophage Therapy for the Management of Pressure Ulcers and Its Comparison to Conventional Therapy: A Randomized Controlled Trial.Indian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine · 2026Article
- Advances in phage therapy forFrontiers in microbiology · 2026Review
- M13 Bacteriophage pVIII Protein: Display Strategies, Chemical Modification, and Antibacterial Activity Investigations.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2026Article
- The gut reservoir of carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales: from dysbiosis and colonization to infection and decolonization, with a focus on patients with hematologic malignancies - a narrative review.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2026Review
- Microbiotherapy: an emerging adjunct for burn wound healing.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2026Review
- Phage therapy againstFrontiers in microbiology · 2026Review
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
abstractAntibiotic-resistant (AR) bacterial wound infections (WIs) impose major burdens on healthcare systems, exacerbated by ineffective therapies and stalled antibiotic development. Phage therapy and phage-derived enzymes have gained traction as potent alternatives, leveraging targeted bactericidal mechanisms to combat AR pathogens. In this review, we summarised the antimicrobial mechanisms of both phage therapy and phage-derived enzymes as antimicrobial therapy, and outlined recent advances in their use for in vitro , in vivo and clinical applications for WI management. In addition, we also highlights recent advancements in their development, driven by genetic engineering, chemical modifications, and artificial intelligence. Finally, we identified the potential barriers and challenges they may encounter in clinical practice and the corresponding strategies to address these issues. The entire review gives us a comprehensive understanding of the latest advances in phages and their derivative enzyme therapies for treating WIs, in the hope that research in this field will continue to improve and innovate, accelerating the transition from the laboratory to application at the bedside and ultimately improving the efficacy of treatment for AR bacterial WIs.
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.