ReviewJournal of internal medicine2026
An update on biofilms in acute and chronic wounds: Incidence, clinical evidence, diagnosis, prevention, and treatment.
Review in Journal of internal medicine, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Pathogenic biofilms are a critical barrier to wound healing, driving infection persistence, delayed tissue repair, and antimicrobial resistance (AMR) and tolerance. This recognition has driven a paradigm shift from a traditional planktonic model of infection to a biofilm-mediated framework, where structured microbial communities are encased within a protective extracellular polymeric substance (EPS) matrix. These communities are highly prevalent in chronic wounds, with reported detection rates of 60%-100% across diabetic foot ulcers, venous leg ulcers, and pressure injuries. The establishment of biofilms fundamentally alters host-microbe interactions, promotes antimicrobial tolerance, and triggers therapeutic failure, prolonged inflammation, and wound chronicity. Despite their clinical relevance, management strategies remain limited. Crucially, a lack of rapid point-of-care diagnostics and standardized clinical endpoints hampers timely intervention. Conventional culture based methods frequently fail to detect sessile microbial populations, necessitating advanced techniques such as next-generation sequencing or confocal microscopy, which are largely unavailable in routine practice. A detailed understanding of the molecular and cellular mechanisms underpinning biofilm persistence is essential to translate knowledge into targeted clinical interventions. Effective management requires a biofilm centric, multimodal strategy that prioritizes regular mechanical debridement to disrupt the EPS matrix, supported by proactive exudate control and appropriate topical therapies. Looking forward, advances in diagnostic technologies, artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted analysis, and matrix disrupting or permeating agents offer significant potential. Furthermore, emerging biological therapies, including bacteriophages, promise to help transform wound management, reduce the burden of AMR, and potentially improve patient outcomes globally.
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.