ArticleCureus2025
The BIOMES℠ Tool: An Approach to Recognizing Wound Severity for Early Intervention and Referral to a Specialist.
Article in Cureus, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The escalating prevalence and incidence of individuals with chronic, non-healing, or hard-to-heal wounds is staggering and poses significant financial burdens on the healthcare system. Initial wound evaluations and assessments are often performed first by urgent care, emergency responders, or even general medicine professionals who are skilled practitioners but are not chronic wound specialists and may have only received a limited amount of education or training specific to wound care. As a result, these medical providers may not be familiar with current wound care scoring systems that aid in determining wound severity, guiding early interventions, and identifying the need for specialized care based on patients' overall medical condition and wound status. A referral to a wound care specialist has the potential to expedite healing, reduce the overall cost of care, alleviate patient suffering, and ultimately, save a limb or a life. The blood flow, infection, offloading, metabolic issues, and exudate, social (BIOMES℠) tool is a coined acronym that can be used by any healthcare provider to quickly identify whether a patient should be referred to a specialist by classifying a wound as low, moderate, or high risk for delayed healing. Blood flow, infection/bioburden, offloading/overloading, metabolic/morbidity, exudate/edema, and social/economic barriers are assessed, and 1 point is assigned to each barrier that can be identified as a red flag with the potential to affect the healing trajectory of a patient's wound. Wounds are classified as follows: low risk: no barriers; moderate risk: 1 BIOMES℠ barrier; high risk: 2 or more BIOMES℠ barriers. Any patient identified as moderate or high risk should be referred to a wound care specialist in hopes that earlier, more aggressive wound care and medical management will result in improved wound healing versus traditional wound management. Addressing these barriers is essential for wound management and improved outcomes, especially in lower extremity care.
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.