The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Biofilms and Wounds: An Overview of the Evidence
Open accessAbstract
Significance: Microorganisms can exist both in the planktonic and biofilm state. Each phenotypic state has a role to play in delaying healing and causing infections of both acute and chronic wounds. However, the virulent biofilm state is the fundamental reason that chronic wounds do not heal in a timely manner. We hypothesize that because microorganisms attach to any surface, biofilms can be found in all chronic wounds. However, it is not the biofilm per se that represents the greatest obstacle to the healing of a chronic wound, but its virulence and pathogenicity. Recent Advances: Numerous studies with animals and humans have identified biofilms in wounds. In particular, these studies have highlighted how biofilms impede host fibroblast development, inflammatory responses, and the efficacy of antimicrobial therapy. Despite this, the role biofilms play in affecting the healing of wounds is still vigorously debated. Critical Issues: Clinicians must understand the role that pathogenic biofilms play in impairing the healing of chronic wounds and in increasing the risk for wound infection, with its potentially catastrophic outcomes. The composition of the biofilm, its physiochemical properties, the climaxed indigenous microbiota and their virulence/pathogenicity, microbial numbers and the host's pathophysiology, and immunological fitness will govern the sustainability of a pathogenic biofilm in a wound and its resistance to interventions. Future Directions: Establishing which specific pathogenic biofilms delay wound healing should help guide better wound care practices.
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.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“Chronic wounds are invariably colonised by bacterial biofilms, meaning any essential oils that might be used as topical wound treatments must have anti-biofilm activity (Percival et al. 2015).”
From Linking chemical-composition to antimicrobial efficacy: development of an essential oil-based topical gel prototype (2025) · cites this paper as Percival et al. 2015
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
Microscopic and physiologic evidence for biofilm-associated wound colonization in vivo
Davis, S. C., Ricotti, C., Cazzaniga, A., Welsh, E., Eaglstein, W. H., & Mertz, P. M. (2008) · Wound Repair and Regeneration · doi:10.1111/j.1524-475x.2007.00303.x · Cited by 393
Pastar, I., Nusbaum, A. G., Gil, J., Patel, S. B., Chen, J., Valdes, J., Stojadinovic, O., Plano, L. R., Tomic-Canic, M., & Davis, S. C. (2013) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0056846 · Cited by 391
An in vivo polymicrobial biofilm wound infection model to study interspecies interactions
Dalton, T., Dowd, S. E., Wolcott, R. D., Sun, Y., Watters, C., Griswold, J. A., & Rumbaugh, K. P. (2011) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0027317 · Cited by 372
Schierle, C. F., De la Garza, M., Mustoe, T. A., & Galiano, R. D. (2009) · Wound Repair and Regeneration · doi:10.1111/j.1524-475x.2009.00489.x · Cited by 311 · cited 2×
“A further study by Schierle et al.(20) used a murine cutaneous wound system to demonstrate that S.”
MethodZhao, G., Hochwalt, P. C., Usui, M. L., Underwood, R. A., Singh, P. K., James, G. A., Stewart, P. S., Fleckman, P., & Olerud, J. E. (2010) · Wound Repair and Regeneration · doi:10.1111/j.1524-475x.2010.00608.x · Cited by 275
Time course study of delayed wound healing in a biofilm-challenged diabetic mouse model
Zhao, G., Usui, M. L., Underwood, R. A., Singh, P. K., James, G. A., Stewart, P. S., Fleckman, P., & Olerud, J. E. (2012) · Wound Repair and Regeneration · doi:10.1111/j.1524-475x.2012.00793.x · Cited by 127
Cited by
The antimicrobial peptide SAAP-148 combats drug-resistant bacteria and biofilms
de Breij, A., Riool, M., Cordfunke, R. A., Malanovic, N., de Boer, L., Koning, R. I., Ravensbergen, E., Franken, M., van der Heijde, T., Boekema, B. K., et al. (2018) · Science Translational Medicine · doi:10.1126/scitranslmed.aan4044 · Cited by 555
Biofilms in Chronic Wounds: Pathogenesis and Diagnosis
Wu, Y.-K., Cheng, N.-C., & Cheng, C.-M. (2019) · Trends in Biotechnology · doi:10.1016/j.tibtech.2018.10.011 · Cited by 473
Microenvironment‐Based Diabetic Foot Ulcer Nanomedicine
Huang, F., Lu, X., Yang, Y., Yang, Y., Li, Y., Kuai, L., Li, B., Dong, H., & Shi, J. (2023) · Advanced Science · doi:10.1002/advs.202203308 · Cited by 365
Kalan, L., Loesche, M., Hodkinson, B. P., Heilmann, K., Ruthel, G., Gardner, S. E., & Grice, E. A. (2016) · mBio · doi:10.1128/mbio.01058-16 · Cited by 246
A Wirelessly Controlled Smart Bandage with 3D‐Printed Miniaturized Needle Arrays
Derakhshandeh, H., Aghabaglou, F., McCarthy, A., Mostafavi, A., Wiseman, C., Bonick, Z., Ghanavati, I., Harris, S., Kreikemeier‐Bower, C., Moosavi Basri, S. M., et al. (2020) · Advanced Functional Materials · doi:10.1002/adfm.201905544 · Cited by 188
Metadata
- Authors
- Percival, S. L., McCarty, S. M., & Lipsky, B.
- Venue
- Advances in Wound Care
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2015-07
- Volume
- 4
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 373-381
- ISSN
- 2162-1918 (ISSN-L)
- 2162-1934
- OpenAlex
- W2101307155
- Cited by
- 423
- References
- 6
- FWCI
- 5.96
- 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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Biofilms and Wounds: An Overview of the Evidence. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1089/wound.2014.0557
- The paper
- Percival, S. L., McCarty, S. M., & Lipsky, B. (2015). Biofilms and Wounds: An Overview of the Evidence. Advances in Wound Care. https://doi.org/10.1089/wound.2014.0557
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.
