Cited by 337

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

Schultz, Gregory, Bjarnsholt, Thomas, James, Garth A., Leaper, David J., McBain, Andrew J., Malone, Matthew, Stoodley, Paul, Swanson, Theresa, Tachi, Masahiro, Wolcott, Randall D., for the Global Wound Biofilm Expert Panel·2017·Wound Repair and Regeneration

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/wrr.12590

Cites

4 of 4 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

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?

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

Research works printed but not linked: 103

  1. 10.1016/j.tim.2013.06.002 · DOI · Paper page
  2. 10.1111/apm.12099 · DOI · Paper page
  3. 10.1016/j.cmi.2014.10.024 · DOI · Paper page
  4. 10.12968/jowc.2010.19.7.48898 · DOI
  5. 10.1111/wrr.12379 · DOI
  6. 10.1186/1472-6890-14-20 · DOI
  7. 10.1111/wrr.12000 · DOI
  8. 10.1111/j.1365-2672.2012.05264.x · DOI
  9. 10.1111/iwj.12142 · DOI
  10. 10.12968/jowc.2016.25.6.305 · DOI
  11. 10.12968/jowc.2013.22.Sup5.S1 · DOI
  12. 10.1111/j.1524-475X.2007.00321.x · DOI · Paper page
  13. 10.1128/JCM.00501-08 · DOI
  14. 10.12968/jowc.2014.23.3.137 · DOI
  15. 10.12968/jowc.2008.17.4.28835 · DOI
  16. Kerlinger FN., 1973, Foundations of behavioral research
  17. Linstone HA, 1975, The Delphi method: techniques and applications
  18. 10.12968/jowc.2016.25.Sup9.S11 · DOI
  19. 10.1111/iwj.12777 · DOI
  20. 10.1128/AAC.44.7.1818-1824.2000 · DOI · Paper page
  21. 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
  22. 10.1111/j.1574-695X.2012.00983.x · DOI
  23. 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0290(20000520)68:4<456::AID-BIT11>3.0.CO;2-Z · DOI
  24. 10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2009.12.011 · DOI
  25. 10.1111/j.1524-475X.2010.00651.x · DOI
  26. 10.1016/S0140-6736(01)05321-1 · DOI
  27. 10.1111/j.1462-2920.2005.00797.x · DOI
  28. 10.12968/jowc.2017.26.1.20 · DOI
  29. 10.1128/JCM.01395-09 · DOI
  30. 10.1128/IAI.00586-07 · DOI
  31. 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2010.02728.x · DOI
  32. 10.1111/j.1524-475X.2007.00303.x · DOI · Paper page
  33. 10.1111/j.1524-475X.2011.00690.x · DOI
  34. 10.1097/PRS.0b013e31823aeb3b · DOI
  35. 10.1111/j.1524-475X.2012.00764.x · DOI
  36. 10.1016/j.mib.2011.11.001 · DOI
  37. 10.1586/ers.13.24 · DOI
  38. 10.1073/pnas.1107435109 · DOI
  39. 10.1371/journal.pone.0022702 · DOI
  40. 10.1097/ACI.0b013e3283423376 · DOI
  41. 10.1186/1471-2334-13-210 · DOI
  42. 10.2500/ajra.2009.23.3319 · DOI
  43. 10.1016/j.jaci.2013.06.049 · DOI
  44. 10.1038/sj.clpt.6100247 · DOI
  45. 10.1099/00222615-27-4-255 · DOI
  46. 10.4049/jimmunol.171.8.4329 · DOI
  47. 10.1111/j.1524-475X.2012.00793.x · DOI · Paper page
  48. 10.12968/jowc.2016.25.Sup10.S33 · DOI
  49. 10.1016/j.ijmm.2013.11.011 · DOI
  50. 10.1016/j.ijmm.2012.05.001 · DOI
  51. 10.1002/lary.24255 · DOI
  52. 10.1111/j.1600-0463.2009.02466.x · DOI
  53. 10.1128/IAI.06215-11 · DOI
  54. 10.12968/jowc.2010.19.8.77709 · DOI
  55. 10.1111/wrr.12370 · DOI
  56. 10.1111/wrr.12401 · DOI
  57. 10.3390/ijms13032535 · DOI
  58. 10.1111/j.1524-475X.2009.00561.x · DOI
  59. 10.1093/cid/cis346 · DOI
  60. 10.1002/dmrr.2699 · DOI
  61. 10.12968/jowc.2015.24.11.498 · DOI
  62. Cutting KF., 2010, Biofilms and significance to wound healing. Microbiology of wounds
  63. 10.1038/ismej.2014.96 · DOI
  64. 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2012.05.028 · DOI · Paper page
  65. 10.1371/journal.pone.0042897 · DOI
  66. 10.1128/AEM.02636-13 · DOI
  67. 10.1111/j.1742-481X.2012.01097.x · DOI
  68. 10.1111/j.1742-481x.2004.00008.x · DOI
  69. 10.1046/j.1524-475X.11.s2.1.x · DOI
  70. Sibbald RG, 2000, Preparing the wound bed–debridement, bacterial balance, and moisture balance, Ostomy Wound Manage, 46, 14
  71. 10.1097/01.ASW.0000482354.01988.b4 · DOI
  72. 10.12968/jowc.2009.18.2.38743 · DOI
  73. 10.1016/j.burns.2009.02.017 · DOI
  74. 10.1111/1462-2920.12155 · DOI · Paper page
  75. 10.1128/AAC.03132-14 · DOI
  76. 10.1177/1099800408326169 · DOI
  77. 10.1093/cid/ciw118 · DOI
  78. Snyder RJ, 2017, Wound biofilm: current perspectives and strategies on biofilm disruption and treatments, Wounds, 29, S1
  79. 10.12968/jowc.2016.25.Sup3.S7 · DOI
  80. 10.1177/1534734616646261 · DOI
  81. 10.1177/0885328204040540 · DOI
  82. 10.12968/jowc.2014.23.Sup9.S4 · DOI
  83. 10.12968/jowc.2013.22.1.26 · DOI
  84. 10.3109/10408418109085082 · DOI
  85. 10.1128/JB.185.5.1485-1491.2003 · DOI
  86. 10.1128/AAC.37.12.2522 · DOI
  87. 10.1128/AEM.02090-09 · DOI
  88. 10.2175/106143096X128504 · DOI
  89. 10.1007/s10541-005-0111-6 · DOI
  90. 10.1007/978-3-319-09782-4_1 · DOI
  91. 10.1128/AAC.44.3.640-646.2000 · DOI
  92. 10.12968/jowc.2011.20.5.220 · DOI
  93. 10.1128/AAC.47.1.317-323.2003 · DOI
  94. 10.1128/AAC.34.9.1666 · DOI
  95. 10.1007/978-1-4939-0467-9_17 · DOI
  96. 10.1038/nrd4000 · DOI
  97. 10.1371/journal.pone.0027943 · DOI
  98. 10.1186/1471-2180-10-294 · DOI
  99. 10.1111/bjd.13677 · DOI
  100. 10.1016/j.jmb.2015.09.002 · DOI
  101. 10.1080/14787210.2017.1262257 · DOI
  102. 10.1016/j.dental.2014.04.001 · DOI
  103. 10.1016/j.wear.2013.02.010 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 337

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