Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 785

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Definitions and Guidelines for Assessment of Wounds and Evaluation of Healing

Open access
Lazarus, Gerald S.·1994·Archives of Dermatology

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Chronic wounds represent a worldwide problem. For laboratory and clinical research to adequately address this problem, a common language needs to exist. OBSERVATION: This language should include a system of wound classification, a lexicon of wound descriptors, and a description of the processes that are likely to affect wound healing and wound healing end points. CONCLUSIONS: The report that follows defines wound, acute wound, chronic wound, healing and forms of healing, wound assessment, wound extent, wound burden, and wound severity. The utility of these definitions is demonstrated as they relate to the healing of a skin wound, but these definitions are broadly applicable to all wounds.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/archderm.1994.01690040093015

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Lazarus, G. S.
Venue
Archives of Dermatology
Published
1994-04-01
Volume
130
Issue
4
Pages
489
ISSN
0003-987X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2068061989
Cited by
785
References
0
FWCI
11.72
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.