ArticleFrontiers in veterinary science2026
Effect of fluorescence biomodulation as an adjunct to standard wound management in open wounds in dogs and cats: a prospective, randomised, within-wound controlled clinical trial.
Article in Frontiers in veterinary science, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Open wounds are a common clinical problem in small animal practice and are associated with delayed healing, infection, and increased treatment burden. Fluorescence biomodulation (FB), a form of photobiomodulation therapy (PBMT), has shown benefits in several dermatological conditions; however, its efficacy in veterinary open wounds remains unclear. Objectives: To evaluate the effect of FB as an adjunct to standardised wound management on healing progression in open wounds in dogs and cats using a prospective, randomised, within-wound controlled clinical trial. Methods: Fifteen client-owned dogs and cats with open wounds of various aetiologies were enrolled. Each wound was divided into two portions: one treated weekly with FB and one untreated control, both receiving standardised wound care based on the TIME framework. Quantitative wound area reduction was assessed by serial planimetric measurements. Qualitative healing parameters were scored weekly by two blinded observers, and semiquantitative histological and immunohistochemical evaluation was performed in surgically treated cases. Paired statistical analyses were used. A time-integrated analysis based on the area under the curve (AUC) of normalised wound area was performed to assess healing kinetics. Results: No statistically significant differences were observed between treated and control portions for percentage wound area reduction, qualitative healing scores, or semiquantitative histological and immunohistochemical outcomes. Quantitative planimetry showed a heterogeneous response, with seven wounds favouring the treated portion, six favouring the control portion, and two showing equivalent outcomes. Exploratory Conclusion: Under the conditions tested, FB did not demonstrate a consistent measurable advantage over standardised wound management in open wounds in dogs and cats. Any potential clinical benefit appeared modest and possibly limited to selected wound presentations. Further prospectively stratified studies focused on healing speed and readiness for closure are warranted.
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.