Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 531

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 124 of the 124 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Experimental models and methods for cutaneous wound healing assessment

Open access
Masson‐Meyers, Daniela S., Andrade, Thiago A. M., Caetano, Guilherme F., Guimaraes, Francielle R., Leite, Marcel N., Leite, Saulo N., Frade, Marco Andrey C.·2020·International Journal of Experimental Pathology

Abstract

Summary: Wound healing studies are intricate, mainly because of the multifaceted nature of the wound environment and the complexity of the healing process, which integrates a variety of cells and repair phases, including inflammation, proliferation, reepithelialization and remodelling. There are a variety of possible preclinical models, such as in mice, rabbits and pigs, which can be used to mimic acute or impaired for example, diabetic and nutrition‐related wounds. These can be induced by many different techniques, with excision or incision being the most common. After determining a suitable model for a study, investigators need to select appropriate and reproducible methods that will allow the monitoring of the wound progression over time. The assessment can be performed by non‐invasive protocols such as wound tracing, photographic documentation (including image analysis), biophysical techniques and/or by invasive protocols that will require wound biopsies. In this article, we provide an overview of some of the most often needed and used: (a) preclinical/animal models including incisional, excisional, burn and impaired wounds; (b) methods to evaluate the healing progression such as wound healing rate, wound analysis by image, biophysical assessment, histopathological, immunological and biochemical assays. The aim is to help researchers during the design and execution of their wound healing studies.

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 · 10.1111/iep.12346

Cites

124 of 124 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

1 retracted

Show all 124 references

Cited by

See all 531

Metadata

Authors
Masson‐Meyers, D. S., Andrade, T. A. M., Caetano, G. F., Guimaraes, F. R., Leite, M. N., Leite, S. N., & Frade, M. A. C.
Venue
International Journal of Experimental Pathology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2020-02
Volume
101
Issue
1-2
Pages
21-37
ISSN
  • 0959-9673 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2613
OpenAlex
W3013379147
Cited by
531
References
124
FWCI
21.56
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: Experimental models and methods for cutaneous wound healing assessment. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/iep.12346
The paper
Masson‐Meyers, D. S., Andrade, T. A. M., Caetano, G. F., Guimaraes, F. R., Leite, M. N., Leite, S. N., & Frade, M. A. C. (2020). Experimental models and methods for cutaneous wound healing assessment. International Journal of Experimental Pathology. https://doi.org/10.1111/iep.12346

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.