ArticleInternational wound journal2025
Clinical Signs and Symptoms of Biofilm in Chronic Wounds. What Do Practitioners Think? Consensus Through an Electronic Delphi Survey.
Article in International wound journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Clinical Signs and Symptoms of Biofilm-Associated Infection in Chronic Wounds: A Systematic Review of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies.International wound journal · 2026Pooled it
- Clinical Signs and Symptoms of Biofilm in Chronic Wounds. What Do Practitioners Think? Consensus Through an Electronic Delphi Survey.International wound journal · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study aimed to gain clinician consensus on which signs/symptoms reported to be indicative of biofilm in chronic wounds are likely to be so. An international, two-round eDelphi process including wound care clinicians ran from December 2023 to February 2024. Participants rated 26 items on a 9-point Likert scale. Consensus to include: ≥ 70% of respondents rate an item 7-9, ≤ 15% rate it 1-3. Consensus to exclude: ≥ 70% of respondents rate an item 1-3, ≤ 15% rate it 7-9. Eleven items (visual indicators [a shiny, slimy, persistent layer, easily removed, returns quickly without frequent intervention]; failure to respond to antimicrobials; infection > 30 days duration; poor quality granulation tissue; stalled wound despite optimal management; persistent/prolonged inflammation; wound > 6 weeks duration; soft tissue deterioration despite antimicrobials/debridement; signs of local infection; tunnelling/undermining; presence of slough) achieved consensus to include status. To our knowledge, consensus work on this topic has not previously been performed on such a wide scale. When examined alongside similar work, clinical opinion on the matter lacks coherence. We hope that these findings will help direct us toward greater cohesiveness. The work supports a need for research to quantify the predictive abilities of signs and symptoms reported to be indicative of biofilm in chronic wounds.
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.