ReviewCurrent opinion in infectious diseases2026
Managing skin infections in burn patients: principles and pitfalls.
Review in Current opinion in infectious diseases, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Temporal Trends and Epidemiological Patterns of Clinically Relevant Microorganisms in a Burn Unit: An 11-Year Retrospective Study from a Tertiary Hospital in Southern Brazil.Epidemiologia (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Infections in Burn Patients: Pathophysiology, Prevention, and Contemporary Therapeutic Strategies in the Era of Antimicrobial Resistance.Infectious diseases and therapy · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purpose of reviewBurn wound infections pose a major challenge in both critical care and surgical settings, owing to the complex interplay of host immune dysfunction, altered pharmacokinetics, surgical wound dynamics, and the high prevalence of multidrug-resistant (MDR) organisms. This review summarizes current evidence on diagnosis, antimicrobial therapy, and multidisciplinary management of burn wound infections, highlighting common pitfalls and strategies to mitigate them. RECENT
findingsBurn patients display a distinct microbiological profile that evolves over time: Gram-positive cocci initially predominate, whereas nonfermenting Gram-negative bacilli such as Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Acinetobacter baumannii become increasingly prevalent during hospitalization. Differentiating colonization from infection remains a major diagnostic challenge. Although tissue biopsy is the gold standard for confirming wound infection, it is not uniformly implemented across centers. Therefore, a comprehensive clinical and microbiological evaluation involving infectious disease specialists, intensivists, and surgeons is essential for accurate interpretation of wound status. Antimicrobial stewardship interventions, including pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic optimization, therapeutic drug monitoring, carbapenem-sparing regimens, shorter antibiotic courses, and avoidance of redundant combination therapies, are key components of burn infection management. New agents, such as β-lactam/β-lactamase inhibitor combinations and novel tetracyclines, show promise against MDR nonfermenting Gram-negative pathogens. SUMMARY: A structured, multidisciplinary team offers the most effective framework for improving outcomes in burn wound infections. Optimizing diagnostics, individualizing antimicrobial therapy, and aligning surgical timing with infection control measures are fundamental pillars. Future research should focus on prospective validation of integrated care pathways and on evaluating the real-world effectiveness of novel antimicrobial agents in burn-injured patients.
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.