ReviewCureus2025
Microbiology of Pressure Ulcers: A Systematic Review.
Review in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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.
- Antimicrobial Activity of Acidifying Hyaluronic Acid-Starch Microfiber Dressings Against Clinical Isolates from Chronic Wounds.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Pressure ulcers are complex wounds frequently complicated by infection. This review aims to characterize the distribution of microorganisms in pressure ulcers and secondarily to assess heterogeneity across studies and compare yields between invasive (biopsies) and noninvasive (swabs/irrigation-aspiration) sampling techniques with implications for antimicrobial management. PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched up to 1 January 2025. Original research articles reporting microbiological data from pressure ulcers were included. Studies were excluded if data were incomplete, combined with other wound types, or derived from non-ulcer sampling sites. Risk of bias was assessed using Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies - of Interventions (ROBINS-I) V2, ROBINS-E, and RoB 2 frameworks. Data were synthesized descriptively and statistically. Twenty-eight studies (1,473 patients, 1,682 pressure ulcers, and 4,231 microbial isolates) were included. The most frequently isolated microorganisms were
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.