ReviewJournal of thoracic disease2025
The wound microbiome associated with deep sternal wound infection: a scoping review.
Review in Journal of thoracic disease, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
Background: Deep sternal wound infection (DSWI) is a serious complication following cardiovascular surgery, increasing patient mortality and healthcare burden. Understanding the wound microbiome, including microbial load, microbial diversity, presence/abundance of common wound microorganisms, and biofilm formation, is crucial for improving infection prevention, diagnosis, and management. This scoping review aims to: (I) summarize DSWI definitions, specimen acquisition methods, and microbial identification techniques; (II) synthesize current DSWI literature regarding microbial load, microbial diversity, presence/abundance of common wound microorganisms, and biofilm formation. Methods: A scoping review was conducted using PubMed and EMBASE to identify studies on the wound microbiome in DSWI. Studies were included if they were in English, focused on adults, and published in journals. Exclusion included secondary sources, case reports, transplant populations, and other nosocomial infections. Data extraction followed a standardized approach, and findings were synthesized narratively, with a table summarizing study details. Seventy-one studies were included in this scoping review. Results: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) criteria were most commonly used for DSWI. Specimen location was unspecified in 60.6% of studies, while 14.1% specified the mediastinum. Methods of specimen acquisition were reported in only 25.3% of studies. Culture techniques were predominant (91.5%), while molecular or imaging methods were used in only 8.5%. Among studies using culture, Conclusions: This review revealed critical gaps in DSWI research, including poor reporting of specimen acquisition, a narrow focus on common wound microorganisms, and an overreliance on culture-based methods. The lack of standardized specimen collection reporting reduces data reliability and comparability. Limited use of molecular techniques restricts insights into microbial complexity. Advanced molecular techniques, including polymerase chain reaction, 16S ribosomal RNA (rRNA) sequencing, and metagenomic sequencing, are needed to improve microbiome characterization. Addressing these gaps will improve infection prevention and management for DSWI.
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.