The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A review of the scientific evidence for biofilms in wounds
Abstract
Both chronic and acute dermal wounds are susceptible to infection due to sterile loss of the innate barrier function of the skin and dermal appendages, facilitating the development of microbial communities, referred to as biofilms, within the wound environment. Microbial biofilms are implicated in both the infection of wounds and failure of those wounds to heal. The aim of this review is to provide a summary of published papers detailing biofilms in wounds, the effect they have on infection and wound healing, and detailing methods employed for their detection. The studies highlighted within this paper provide evidence that biofilms reside within the chronic wound and represent an important mechanism underlying the observed, delayed healing and infection. The reasons for this include both protease activity and immunological suppression. Furthermore, a lack of responsiveness to an array of antimicrobial agents has been due to the biofilms’ ability to inherently resist antimicrobial agents. It is imperative that effective strategies are developed, tested prospectively, and employed in chronic wounds to support the healing process and to reduce infection rates. It is increasingly apparent that adoption of a biofilm‐based management approach to wound care, utilizing the “antibiofilm tool box” of therapies, to kill and prevent reattachment of microorganisms in the biofilm is producing the most positive clinical outcomes and prevention of infection.
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
Cites
Biofilms: Survival Mechanisms of Clinically Relevant Microorganisms
Donlan, R. M., & Costerton, J. W. (2002) · Clinical Microbiology Reviews · doi:10.1128/cmr.15.2.167-193.2002 · Cited by 6,644
Self-citationPseudomonas aeruginosa Displays Multiple Phenotypes during Development as a Biofilm
Sauer, K., Camper, A. K., Ehrlich, G. D., Costerton, J. W., & Davies, D. G. (2002) · Journal of Bacteriology · doi:10.1128/jb.184.4.1140-1154.2002 · Cited by 1,691 · cited 1×
“In fact, Pseudomonas aeruginosa is known to display multiple phenotypes during development as a biofilm.(7) Biofilm-grown bacteria also produce quorum sensing signaling molecules, which enable them to act as a complex multicellular entity.”
BackgroundSelf-citationMicroscopic 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
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
Microbial diversity in chronic open wounds
Frank, D. N., Wysocki, A., Specht‐Glick, D. D., Rooney, A., Feldman, R. A., St. Amand, A. L., Pace, N. R., & Trent, J. D. (2009) · Wound Repair and Regeneration · doi:10.1111/j.1524-475x.2009.00472.x · Cited by 123
Potential role of anaerobic cocci in impaired human wound healing
Wall, I. B., Davies, C. E., Hill, K. E., Wilson, M. J., Stephens, P., Harding, K. G., & Thomas, D. W. (2002) · Wound Repair and Regeneration · doi:10.1046/j.1524-475x.2002.t01-1-10602.x · Cited by 62
Self-citation
Cited by
Strategies for combating bacterial biofilm infections
Wu, H., Moser, C., Wang, H.-Z., Høiby, N., & Song, Z.-J. (2015) · International Journal of Oral Science · doi:10.1038/ijos.2014.65 · Cited by 925
de la Fuente-Núñez, C., Reffuveille, F., Fernández, L., & Hancock, R. E. (2013) · Current Opinion in Microbiology · doi:10.1016/j.mib.2013.06.013 · Cited by 801
ESCMID∗ guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of biofilm infections 2014
Høiby, N., Bjarnsholt, T., Moser, C., Bassi, G. L., Coenye, T., Donelli, G., Hall-Stoodley, L., Holá, V., Imbert, C., Kirketerp-Møller, K., et al. (2015) · Clinical Microbiology and Infection · doi:10.1016/j.cmi.2014.10.024 · Cited by 726
Chronic wound infections: the role of Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Staphylococcus aureus
Serra, R., Grande, R., Butrico, L., Rossi, A., Settimio, U. F., Caroleo, B., Amato, B., Gallelli, L., & de Franciscis, S. (2015) · Expert Review of Anti-infective Therapy · doi:10.1586/14787210.2015.1023291 · Cited by 648
The Effect of pH on the Extracellular Matrix and Biofilms
Jones, E. M., Cochrane, C. A., & Percival, S. L. (2015) · Advances in Wound Care · doi:10.1089/wound.2014.0538 · Cited by 455
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Percival, S. L., Hill, K. E., Williams, D. W., Hooper, S. J., Thomas, D. W., & Costerton, J. W.
- Venue
- Wound Repair and Regeneration
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2012-09
- Volume
- 20
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 647-657
- ISSN
- 1067-1927 (ISSN-L)
- 1524-475X
- OpenAlex
- W1818684172
- Cited by
- 483
- References
- 6
- FWCI
- 12.55
- 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: A review of the scientific evidence for biofilms in wounds. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1524-475x.2012.00836.x
- The paper
- Percival, S. L., Hill, K. E., Williams, D. W., Hooper, S. J., Thomas, D. W., & Costerton, J. W. (2012). A review of the scientific evidence for biofilms in wounds. Wound Repair and Regeneration. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-475x.2012.00836.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.
