The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Topical Antimicrobial Therapy for Treating Chronic Wounds
Abstract
Various agents have been applied topically to treat infected wounds for millennia, but their proper role remains unclear. Topical therapy affords many potential advantages but also has disadvantages. Opinions differ on which clinical signs define wound infection and on whether quantitative microbiological studies are useful. Clinically infected wounds usually require systemic antibiotic therapy, whereas clinically uninfected wounds that are healing as expected do not require antimicrobials. There is controversy over how to treat poorly healing wounds with “secondary” signs suggesting infection; these may benefit from topical antimicrobial agents. Some evidence supports using topical agents for malodorous or burn wounds. Meta-analyses and systematic reviews suggest there are few proven indications for topical antimicrobials. Use of a newer, relatively nontoxic antiseptic (eg, cadexomer iodine or silver dressings) is preferable to use of topical antibiotics, especially agents that are available for systemic use. We provide clinically relevant information on currently available topical antimicrobial agents. Perhaps the most deceptively simple of all therapeutic procedures is the treatment of cutaneous infection with topical medication. Despite the unique accessibility of the skin to scientific investigation, it has for too long been the playground of crude empiricism. —Professor Sydney Selwyn, 1981[1]
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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
Wound healing and treating wounds
Morton, L. M., & Phillips, T. J. (2016) · Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology · doi:10.1016/j.jaad.2015.08.068 · Cited by 475
Challenges in the management of chronic wound infections
Falcone, M., De Angelis, B., Pea, F., Scalise, A., Stefani, S., Tasinato, R., Zanetti, O., & Dalla Paola, L. (2021) · Journal of Global Antimicrobial Resistance · doi:10.1016/j.jgar.2021.05.010 · Cited by 339
Biofilm-Innate Immune Interface: Contribution to Chronic Wound Formation
Versey, Z., da Cruz Nizer, W. S., Russell, E., Zigic, S., DeZeeuw, K. G., Marek, J. E., Overhage, J., & Cassol, E. (2021) · Frontiers in Immunology · doi:10.3389/fimmu.2021.648554 · Cited by 253
PLGA based drug delivery systems: promising carriers for wound healing activity
Chereddy, K. K., Vandermeulen, G., & Préat, V. (2016) · Wound Repair and Regeneration · doi:10.1111/wrr.12404 · Cited by 215
Metadata
- Authors
- Lipsky, B. A., & Hoey, C.
- Venue
- Clinical Infectious Diseases
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2009-11-15
- Volume
- 49
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 1541-1549
- ISSN
- 1058-4838 (ISSN-L)
- 1537-6591
- OpenAlex
- W2162061971
- Cited by
- 572
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 13.66
- 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
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.