ReviewJournal of market access & health policy2025
Clinical and Economic Evidence Supporting the Value of Fluorescence Imaging of Bacteria in Wound Care.
Review in Journal of market access & health policy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Optical, Tomographic, and Mass Spectrometry Imaging Methods for Burn Wounds: Capabilities, Limitations, and Clinical Potential.Biomedicines · 2026Review
- Maintenance Debridement in Chronic Hard-to-Heal Wounds: Toward Dynamic Homeostasis and Precision Intervention.International wound journal · 2026Review
- Absence of Bacterial Fluorescence Is Associated With Early Response to Skin Substitutes in Diabetic and Venous Ulcers: A Single-Blinded Prospective Study.International wound journal · 2026Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Wound infection significantly hinders the healing process. Clinical signs and symptoms (CSS) of infection are used to assess the presence of infection and guide whether to intervene. However, CSS may not be dependable, lacking sensitivity and specificity, and may not accurately reflect bacterial load. The interpretation of CSS can be subjective and can vary between clinicians since they depend on patient characteristics, type of wound, and stage of infection. In addition, conditions such as peripheral vascular disease or diabetes can mask the signs and symptoms of infection. Inaccurate or late diagnosis of infected wounds can be costly to the patient and to healthcare systems. Fluorescence imaging (FLI) provides a safe, objective, highly sensitive approach to detect clinically significant bacterial levels in wounds. This information allows individualized treatment plans and a way to monitor bacterial burden and wound healing longitudinally. This publication reviews the evidence for point-of-care FLI as a means of improving wound identification with a high bacterial burden and the clinical and healthcare economic benefits of earlier and more accurate detection of bacteria.
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.