The DOI matches its Crossref record; 9 of the 9 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Analysis of the chronic wound microbiota of 2,963 patients by 16S rDNA pyrosequencing
Open accessAbstract
The extent to which microorganisms impair wound healing is an ongoing controversy in the management of chronic wounds. Because the high diversity and extreme variability of the microbiota between individual chronic wounds lead to inconsistent findings in small cohort studies, evaluation of a large number of chronic wounds using identical sequencing and bioinformatics methods is necessary for clinicians to be able to select appropriate empiric therapies. In this study, we utilized 16S rDNA pyrosequencing to analyze the composition of the bacterial communities present in samples obtained from patients with chronic diabetic foot ulcers (N = 910), venous leg ulcers (N = 916), decubitus ulcers (N = 767), and nonhealing surgical wounds (N = 370). The wound samples contained a high proportion of Staphylococcus and Pseudomonas species in 63 and 25% of all wounds, respectively; however, a high prevalence of anaerobic bacteria and bacteria traditionally considered commensalistic was also observed. Our results suggest that neither patient demographics nor wound type influenced the bacterial composition of the chronic wound microbiome. Collectively, these findings indicate that empiric antibiotic selection need not be based on nor altered for wound type. Furthermore, the results provide a much clearer understanding of chronic wound microbiota in general; clinical application of this new knowledge over time may help in its translation to improved wound healing outcomes.
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
FastTree 2 – Approximately Maximum-Likelihood Trees for Large Alignments
Price, M. N., Dehal, P. S., & Arkin, A. P. (2010) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0009490 · Cited by 14,894
Bacterial Biofilms: A Common Cause of Persistent Infections
Costerton, J. W., Stewart, P. S., & Greenberg, E. P. (1999) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.284.5418.1318 · Cited by 12,167
Structure, function and diversity of the healthy human microbiome
The Human Microbiome Project Consortium (2012) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature11234 · Cited by 11,726
More powerful procedures for multiple significance testing
Hochberg, Y., & Benjamini, Y. (1990) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.4780090710 · Cited by 2,715
Commensal–dendritic-cell interaction specifies a unique protective skin immune signature
Naik, S., Bouladoux, N., Linehan, J. L., Han, S.-J., Harrison, O. J., Wilhelm, C., Conlan, S., Himmelfarb, S., Byrd, A. L., Deming, C., et al. (2015) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature14052 · Cited by 820
The Neuropathic Diabetic Foot Ulcer Microbiome Is Associated With Clinical Factors
Gardner, S. E., Hillis, S. L., Heilmann, K., Segre, J. A., & Grice, E. A. (2013) · Diabetes · doi:10.2337/db12-0771 · Cited by 320
A Staphylococcus aureus Regulatory System that Responds to Host Heme and Modulates Virulence
Torres, V. J., Stauff, D. L., Pishchany, G., Bezbradica, J. S., Gordy, L. E., Iturregui, J., Anderson, K. L., Dunman, P. M., Joyce, S., & Skaar, E. P. (2007) · Cell Host & Microbe · doi:10.1016/j.chom.2007.03.001 · Cited by 241
What lives on our skin: ecology, genomics and therapeutic opportunities of the skin microbiome
Scharschmidt, T. C., & Fischbach, M. A. (2013) · Drug Discovery Today: Disease Mechanisms · doi:10.1016/j.ddmec.2012.12.003 · Cited by 215
Rhoads, D. D., Cox, S. B., Rees, E. J., Sun, Y., & Wolcott, R. D. (2012) · BMC Infectious Diseases · doi:10.1186/1471-2334-12-321 · Cited by 167
Self-citation
Cited by
Falanga, V., Isseroff, R. R., Soulika, A. M., Romanelli, M., Margolis, D., Kapp, S., Granick, M., & Harding, K. (2022) · Nature Reviews Disease Primers · doi:10.1038/s41572-022-00377-3 · Cited by 1,020
Chronic wounds: Treatment consensus
Eriksson, E., Liu, P. Y., Schultz, G. S., Martins‐Green, M. M., Tanaka, R., Weir, D., Gould, L. J., Armstrong, D. G., Gibbons, G. W., Wolcott, R., et al. (2022) · Wound Repair and Regeneration · doi:10.1111/wrr.12994 · Cited by 412
Self-citationConsensus guidelines for the identification and treatment of biofilms in chronic nonhealing wounds
Schultz, G., Bjarnsholt, T., James, G. A., Leaper, D. J., McBain, A. J., Malone, M., Stoodley, P., Swanson, T., Tachi, M., Wolcott, R. D., et al. (2017) · Wound Repair and Regeneration · doi:10.1111/wrr.12590 · Cited by 337
Self-citationBiofilm-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
Bacterial Biofilm in Chronic Wounds and Possible Therapeutic Approaches
Cavallo, I., Sivori, F., Mastrofrancesco, A., Abril, E., Pontone, M., Di Domenico, E. G., & Pimpinelli, F. (2024) · Biology · doi:10.3390/biology13020109 · Cited by 213
Metadata
- Authors
- Wolcott, R. D., Hanson, J. D., Rees, E. J., Koenig, L. D., Phillips, C. D., Wolcott, R. A., Cox, S. B., & White, J. S.
- Venue
- Wound Repair and Regeneration
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2015-12-10
- Volume
- 24
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 163-174
- ISSN
- 1067-1927 (ISSN-L)
- 1524-475X
- OpenAlex
- W1897910051
- Cited by
- 414
- References
- 9
- FWCI
- 17.37
- 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: Analysis of the chronic wound microbiota of 2,963 patients by 16S rDNA pyrosequencing. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/wrr.12370
- The paper
- Wolcott, R. D., Hanson, J. D., Rees, E. J., Koenig, L. D., Phillips, C. D., Wolcott, R. A., Cox, S. B., & White, J. S. (2016). Analysis of the chronic wound microbiota of 2,963 patients by 16S rDNA pyrosequencing. Wound Repair and Regeneration. https://doi.org/10.1111/wrr.12370
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.
