ReviewDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2025
How Can Technology Improve Burn Wound Care: A Review of Wound Imaging Technologies and Their Application in Burns-UK Experience.
Review in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 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.
- 3D Measurement of Chronic Wounds in Routine Care: A Review with Practical Guidance for Smartphone Photogrammetry.Annals of biomedical engineering · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Burn wounds are complex injuries that require timely and accurate assessment to guide treatment decisions and improve healing outcomes. Traditional clinical evaluations are largely subjective, often leading to delays in intervention and increased risk of complications. Imaging technologies have emerged as valuable tools that enhance diagnostic accuracy and enable objective, real-time assessment of wound characteristics. This review aims to evaluate the range of imaging modalities currently applied in burn wound care and assess their clinical relevance, diagnostic accuracy, and cost-effectiveness. It explores how these technologies address key challenges in wound evaluation, particularly related to burn depth, perfusion status, bacterial burden, and healing potential. A comprehensive narrative review was conducted, drawing on peer-reviewed journal articles, NICE innovation briefings, and clinical trial data. The databases searched included PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Library. Imaging modalities examined include Laser Doppler Imaging (LDI), Fluorescence Imaging (FI), Near-Infrared Spectroscopy (NIR), Hyperspectral Imaging, Spatial Frequency Domain Imaging (SFDI), and digital wound measurement systems. The clinical application and integration of these modalities in UK clinical practice were also explored. Each modality demonstrated unique clinical benefits. LDI was effective in assessing burn depth and perfusion, improving surgical planning, and reducing unnecessary procedures. FI, particularly the MolecuLight i:X device (MolecuLight Inc., Toronto, ON, Canada), accurately identified bacterial burden and guided targeted interventions. NIR and Hyperspectral Imaging provided insights into tissue oxygenation and viability, while SFDI enabled early detection of infection and vascular compromise. Digital measurement tools offered accurate, non-contact assessment and supported telemedicine use. NICE recognized both LDI and MolecuLight as valuable tools with the potential to improve outcomes and reduce healthcare costs. Imaging technologies significantly improve the precision and efficiency of burn wound care. Their ability to offer objective, non-invasive diagnostics enhances clinical decision-making. Future research should focus on broader validation and integration into clinical guidelines to ensure widespread adoption.
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.