Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 417

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 17 of the 17 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The validity of the clinical signs and symptoms used to identify localized chronic wound infection

Gardner, Sue E., Frantz, Rita A., Doebbeling, Bradley N.·2001·Wound Repair and Regeneration
DOI 10.1046/j.1524-475x.2001.00178.x
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

It is uncertain how accurately classic signs of acute infection identify infection in chronic wounds, or if the signs of infection specific to secondary wounds are better indicators of infection in these wounds. The purpose of this study was to examine the validity of the “classic” signs (i.e., pain, erythema, edema, heat, and purulence) and the signs specific to secondary wounds (i.e., serous exudate, delayed healing, discoloration of granulation tissue, friable granulation tissue, pocketing at the base of the wound, foul odor, and wound breakdown). Thirty‐six chronic wounds were assessed for these signs and symptoms of infection with interobserver reliability ranging from 0.53 to 1.00. The wounds were then quantitatively cultured, and 11 (31%) were found to be infected. Increasing pain, friable granulation tissue, foul odor, and wound breakdown showed validity based on sensitivity, specificity, discriminatory power, and positive predictive values. The signs specific to secondary wounds were better indicators of chronic wound infection than the classic signs with a mean sensitivity of 0.62 and 0.38, respectively. None of the signs or symptoms was a necessary indicator of infection, but increasing pain and wound breakdown were both sufficient indicators with specificity of 100%.

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 · 10.1046/j.1524-475x.2001.00178.x

Cites

17 of 17 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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

Cites

Show all 17 references

Cited by

See all 417

Metadata

Authors
Gardner, S. E., Frantz, R. A., & Doebbeling, B. N.
Venue
Wound Repair and Regeneration
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2001-05
Volume
9
Issue
3
Pages
178-186
ISSN
  • 1067-1927 (ISSN-L)
  • 1524-475X
DOI
10.1046/j.1524-475x.2001.00178.x
OpenAlex
W2074853205
Cited by
417
References
17
FWCI
6.42
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The validity of the clinical signs and symptoms used to identify localized chronic wound infection. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1046/j.1524-475x.2001.00178.x
The paper
Gardner, S. E., Frantz, R. A., & Doebbeling, B. N. (2001). The validity of the clinical signs and symptoms used to identify localized chronic wound infection. Wound Repair and Regeneration. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1524-475x.2001.00178.x

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.