Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 311

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Wound pathophysiology, infection and therapeutic options

Open access
Bowler, Philip G·2002·Annals of Medicine

Abstract

Wound healing is a complex and highly regulated process that can be compromised by both endogenous factors (pathophysiological) and exogenous factors (micro-organisms). Microbial colonisation of both acute and chronic wounds is inevitable, and in most situations endogenous bacteria predominate, many of which are potentially pathogenic in the wound environment. The risk of wound infection increases as local conditions favour bacterial growth rather than host defence. Consequently a primary objective in wound management is to redress the host-bacterial balance, and this is most effectively achieved by ensuring that the wound is cleared of devitalised tissue and foreign bodies, the bacterial load and inflammation are controlled, and that adequate tissue perfusion is maintained. Although surgical debridement is the most rapid and effective technique for removing devitalised tissue, topical enzymes, moisture-retentive dressings, biosurgical therapy and vacuum therapy have been used as alternative approaches to wound cleansing and preparation. Topical antimicrobial agents continue to be used widely for preventing wound infection and current interest is focused on alternatives to antibiotics, such as antimicrobial moisture-retentive dressings, honey, essential oils and cationic peptides. In addition to the need to control wound microflora, unregulated inflammation caused by both micro-organisms and underlying abnormal pathophysiological conditions is a major factor associated with poor healing in chronic wounds. Consequently, therapeutic strategies that target chronic inflammatory processes are critical to wound progression. The success of future therapies will be dependent on a growing understanding of the pathophysiological processes and the host-bacterial interactions that significantly influence wound healing.

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 · 10.1080/078538902321012360

Cites

3 of 3 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 3 references

Cited by

See all 311

Metadata

Authors
Bowler, P. G.
Venue
Annals of Medicine
Published
2002-01
Volume
34
Issue
6
Pages
419-427
ISSN
  • 0785-3890 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2060
OpenAlex
W2135469918
Cited by
311
References
3
FWCI
8.27
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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: Wound pathophysiology, infection and therapeutic options. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/078538902321012360
The paper
Bowler, P. G. (2002). Wound pathophysiology, infection and therapeutic options. Annals of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1080/078538902321012360

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.