The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Consensus guidelines for the identification and treatment of biofilms in chronic nonhealing wounds
Abstract
Background: Despite a growing consensus that biofilms contribute to a delay in the healing of chronic wounds, conflicting evidence pertaining to their identification and management can lead to uncertainty regarding treatment. This, in part, has been driven by reliance on in vitro data or animal models, which may not directly correlate to clinical evidence on the importance of biofilms. Limited data presented in human studies have further contributed to the uncertainty. Guidelines for care of chronic wounds with a focus on biofilms are needed to help aid the identification and management of biofilms, providing a clinical focus to support clinicians in improving patient care through evidence‐based medicine. Methods: A Global Wound Biofilm Expert Panel, comprising 10 clinicians and researchers with expertise in laboratory and clinical aspects of biofilms, was identified and convened. A modified Delphi process, based on published scientific data and expert opinion, was used to develop consensus statements that could help identify and treat biofilms as part of the management of chronic nonhealing wounds. Using an electronic survey, panel members rated their agreement with statements about biofilm identification and treatment, and the management of chronic nonhealing wounds. Final consensus statements were agreed on in a face‐to‐face meeting. Results: Participants reached consensus on 61 statements in the following topic areas: understanding biofilms and the problems they cause clinicians; current diagnostic options; clinical indicators of biofilms; future options for diagnostic tests; treatment strategies; mechanical debridement; topical antiseptics; screening antibiofilm agents; and levels of evidence when choosing antibiofilm treatments. Conclusion: This consensus document attempts to clarify misunderstandings about the role of biofilms in clinical practice, and provides a basis for clinicians to recognize biofilms in chronic nonhealing wounds and manage patients optimally. A new paradigm for wound care, based on a stepped‐down treatment approach, was derived from the consensus statements.
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
“The European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases recommends using SEM as one of the most reliable diagnostic techniques for detecting biofilms in wounds.23,24”
From SEMTWIST Quantification of Biofilm Infection in Human Chronic Wound Using Scanning Electron Microscopy and Machine Learning (2025) · cites this paper as [23]
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 and Inflammation in Chronic Wounds
Zhao, G., Usui, M. L., Lippman, S. I., James, G. A., Stewart, P. S., Fleckman, P., & Olerud, J. E. (2013) · Advances in Wound Care · doi:10.1089/wound.2012.0381 · Cited by 448
Self-citationSchierle, 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
Price, L. B., Liu, C. M., Melendez, J. H., Frankel, Y. M., Engelthaler, D., Aziz, M., Bowers, J., Rattray, R., Ravel, J., Kingsley, C., et al. (2009) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0006462 · Cited by 237
Nusbaum, A. G., Gil, J., Rippy, M. K., Warne, B., Valdes, J., Claro, A., & Davis, S. C. (2012) · Journal of Surgical Research · doi:10.1016/j.jss.2011.11.1040 · Cited by 75
Research works printed but not linked: 103
- 10.1016/j.tim.2013.06.002 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1111/apm.12099 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1016/j.cmi.2014.10.024 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.12968/jowc.2010.19.7.48898 · DOI
- 10.1111/wrr.12379 · DOI
- 10.1186/1472-6890-14-20 · DOI
- 10.1111/wrr.12000 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1365-2672.2012.05264.x · DOI
- 10.1111/iwj.12142 · DOI
- 10.12968/jowc.2016.25.6.305 · DOI
- 10.12968/jowc.2013.22.Sup5.S1 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1524-475X.2007.00321.x · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1128/JCM.00501-08 · DOI
- 10.12968/jowc.2014.23.3.137 · DOI
- 10.12968/jowc.2008.17.4.28835 · DOI
- Kerlinger FN., 1973, Foundations of behavioral research
- Linstone HA, 1975, The Delphi method: techniques and applications
- 10.12968/jowc.2016.25.Sup9.S11 · DOI
- 10.1111/iwj.12777 · DOI
- 10.1128/AAC.44.7.1818-1824.2000 · DOI · Paper page
- Bjarnsholt T, 2005, Pseudomonas aeruginosa tolerance to tobramycin, hydrogen peroxide and polymorphonuclear leukocytes is quorum‐sensing dependent, Microbiology, 151, 373, 10.1099/mic.0.27463-0 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1574-695X.2012.00983.x · DOI
- 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0290(20000520)68:4<456::AID-BIT11>3.0.CO;2-Z · DOI
- 10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2009.12.011 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1524-475X.2010.00651.x · DOI
- 10.1016/S0140-6736(01)05321-1 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1462-2920.2005.00797.x · DOI
- 10.12968/jowc.2017.26.1.20 · DOI
- 10.1128/JCM.01395-09 · DOI
- 10.1128/IAI.00586-07 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2010.02728.x · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1524-475X.2007.00303.x · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1111/j.1524-475X.2011.00690.x · DOI
- 10.1097/PRS.0b013e31823aeb3b · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1524-475X.2012.00764.x · DOI
- 10.1016/j.mib.2011.11.001 · DOI
- 10.1586/ers.13.24 · DOI
- 10.1073/pnas.1107435109 · DOI
- 10.1371/journal.pone.0022702 · DOI
- 10.1097/ACI.0b013e3283423376 · DOI
- 10.1186/1471-2334-13-210 · DOI
- 10.2500/ajra.2009.23.3319 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.jaci.2013.06.049 · DOI
- 10.1038/sj.clpt.6100247 · DOI
- 10.1099/00222615-27-4-255 · DOI
- 10.4049/jimmunol.171.8.4329 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1524-475X.2012.00793.x · DOI · Paper page
- 10.12968/jowc.2016.25.Sup10.S33 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.ijmm.2013.11.011 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.ijmm.2012.05.001 · DOI
- 10.1002/lary.24255 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1600-0463.2009.02466.x · DOI
- 10.1128/IAI.06215-11 · DOI
- 10.12968/jowc.2010.19.8.77709 · DOI
- 10.1111/wrr.12370 · DOI
- 10.1111/wrr.12401 · DOI
- 10.3390/ijms13032535 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1524-475X.2009.00561.x · DOI
- 10.1093/cid/cis346 · DOI
- 10.1002/dmrr.2699 · DOI
- 10.12968/jowc.2015.24.11.498 · DOI
- Cutting KF., 2010, Biofilms and significance to wound healing. Microbiology of wounds
- 10.1038/ismej.2014.96 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2012.05.028 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1371/journal.pone.0042897 · DOI
- 10.1128/AEM.02636-13 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1742-481X.2012.01097.x · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1742-481x.2004.00008.x · DOI
- 10.1046/j.1524-475X.11.s2.1.x · DOI
- Sibbald RG, 2000, Preparing the wound bed–debridement, bacterial balance, and moisture balance, Ostomy Wound Manage, 46, 14
- 10.1097/01.ASW.0000482354.01988.b4 · DOI
- 10.12968/jowc.2009.18.2.38743 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.burns.2009.02.017 · DOI
- 10.1111/1462-2920.12155 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1128/AAC.03132-14 · DOI
- 10.1177/1099800408326169 · DOI
- 10.1093/cid/ciw118 · DOI
- Snyder RJ, 2017, Wound biofilm: current perspectives and strategies on biofilm disruption and treatments, Wounds, 29, S1
- 10.12968/jowc.2016.25.Sup3.S7 · DOI
- 10.1177/1534734616646261 · DOI
- 10.1177/0885328204040540 · DOI
- 10.12968/jowc.2014.23.Sup9.S4 · DOI
- 10.12968/jowc.2013.22.1.26 · DOI
- 10.3109/10408418109085082 · DOI
- 10.1128/JB.185.5.1485-1491.2003 · DOI
- 10.1128/AAC.37.12.2522 · DOI
- 10.1128/AEM.02090-09 · DOI
- 10.2175/106143096X128504 · DOI
- 10.1007/s10541-005-0111-6 · DOI
- 10.1007/978-3-319-09782-4_1 · DOI
- 10.1128/AAC.44.3.640-646.2000 · DOI
- 10.12968/jowc.2011.20.5.220 · DOI
- 10.1128/AAC.47.1.317-323.2003 · DOI
- 10.1128/AAC.34.9.1666 · DOI
- 10.1007/978-1-4939-0467-9_17 · DOI
- 10.1038/nrd4000 · DOI
- 10.1371/journal.pone.0027943 · DOI
- 10.1186/1471-2180-10-294 · DOI
- 10.1111/bjd.13677 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.jmb.2015.09.002 · DOI
- 10.1080/14787210.2017.1262257 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.dental.2014.04.001 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.wear.2013.02.010 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Severing, A.-L., Rembe, J.-D., Koester, V., & Stuermer, E. K. (2019) · Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy · doi:10.1093/jac/dky432 · Cited by 120
Singh, S., Muniz De Oliveira, F., Wang, C., Kumar, M., Xuan, Y., DeMazumder, D., Sen, C. K., & Roy, S. (2025) · Advances in Wound Care · doi:10.1089/wound.2024.0291 · Cited by 6
Metadata
- Authors
- Schultz, G., Bjarnsholt, T., James, G. A., Leaper, D. J., McBain, A. J., Malone, M., Stoodley, P., Swanson, T., Tachi, M., Wolcott, R. D., & Panel, F. T. G. W. B. E.
- Venue
- Wound Repair and Regeneration
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2017-09
- Volume
- 25
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 744-757
- ISSN
- 1067-1927
- 1524-475X
- Cited by
- 337
- References
- 4
- Language
- en
- Funders
- Smith & Nephew
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