The DOI matches its Crossref record; 95 of the 95 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Chronic wounds: Treatment consensus
Open accessAbstract
The Wound Healing Foundation (WHF) recognised a need for an unbiased consensus on the best treatment of chronic wounds. A panel of 13 experts were invited to a virtual meeting which took place on 27 March 2021. The proceedings were organised in the sub‐sections diagnosis, debridement, infection control, dressings, grafting, pain management, oxygen treatment, outcomes and future needs. Eighty percent or better concurrence among the panellists was considered a consensus. A large number of critical questions were discussed and agreed upon. Important takeaways included that wound care needs to be simplified to a point that it can be delivered by the patient or the patient's family. Another one was that telemonitoring, which has proved very useful during the COVID‐19 pandemic, can help reduce the frequency of interventions by a visiting nurse or a wound care center. Defining patient expectations is critical to designing a successful treatment. Patient outcomes might include wound specific outcomes such as time to heal, wound size reduction, as well as improvement in quality of life. For those patients with expectations of healing, an aggressive approach to achieve that goal is recommended. When healing is not an expectation, such as in patients receiving palliative wound care, outcomes might include pain reduction, exudate management, odour management and/or other quality of life benefits to wound care.
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
Toprak, O., Kurt, H., Sarı, Y., Şarkış, C., Us, H., & Kırık, A. (2017) · Kidney and Blood Pressure Research · doi:10.1159/000468530 · Cited by 29,627
Diagnosis and classification of diabetes mellitus
American Diabetes Association (2010) · Diabetes Care · doi:10.2337/dc10-s062 · Cited by 5,491
Diabetic foot ulcers and their recurrence
Armstrong, D. G., Boulton, A. J. M., & Bus, S. A. (2017) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmra1615439 · Cited by 4,376
Self-citationHuman skin wounds: A major and snowballing threat to public health and the economy
Sen, C. K., Gordillo, G. M., Roy, S., Kirsner, R., Lambert, L., Hunt, T. K., Gottrup, F., Gurtner, G. C., & Longaker, M. T. (2009) · Wound Repair and Regeneration · doi:10.1111/j.1524-475x.2009.00543.x · Cited by 2,965
Self-citationWound healing and its impairment in the diabetic foot
Falanga, V. (2005) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(05)67700-8 · Cited by 2,639
Challenges in the Treatment of Chronic Wounds
Frykberg, R. G., & Banks, J. (2015) · Advances in Wound Care · doi:10.1089/wound.2015.0635 · Cited by 2,437
WINTER, G. D. (1962) · Nature · doi:10.1038/193293a0 · Cited by 2,253
Global Vascular Guidelines on the management of chronic limb-threatening ischemia.
Conte, M. S., Bradbury, A. W., Kolh, P., White, J. V., Dick, F., Fitridge, R., Mills, J. L., Ricco, J.-B., Suresh, K. R., Murad, M. H., et al. (2019) · Journal of Vascular Surgery · doi:10.1016/j.jvs.2019.02.016 · Cited by 2,015
Mills, J. L., Conte, M. S., Armstrong, D. G., Pomposelli, F. B., Schanzer, A., Sidawy, A. N., & Andros, G. (2014) · Journal of Vascular Surgery · doi:10.1016/j.jvs.2013.08.003 · Cited by 1,718
Self-citationCellular and molecular mechanisms of repair in acute and chronic wound healing
Martin, P., & Nunan, R. (2015) · British Journal of Dermatology · doi:10.1111/bjd.13954 · Cited by 1,127
Cited by
Diabetic Foot Ulcers: A Review
Armstrong, D. G., Tan, T.-W., Boulton, A. J. M., & Bus, S. A. (2023) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2023.10578 · Cited by 1,928
Self-citationShirzaei Sani, E., Xu, C., Wang, C., Song, Y., Min, J., Tu, J., Solomon, S. A., Li, J., Banks, J. L., Armstrong, D. G., et al. (2023) · Science Advances · doi:10.1126/sciadv.adf7388 · Cited by 405
Self-citationLi, H., Li, B., Lv, D., Li, W., Lu, Y., & Luo, G. (2023) · Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.addr.2023.114778 · Cited by 142
Metadata
- Authors
- 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., Olutoye, O. O., Kirsner, R. S., & Gurtner, G. C.
- Venue
- Wound Repair and Regeneration
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2022-02-07
- Volume
- 30
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 156-171
- ISSN
- 1067-1927 (ISSN-L)
- 1524-475X
- OpenAlex
- W4210835131
- Cited by
- 412
- References
- 95
- FWCI
- 28.33
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
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: Chronic wounds: Treatment consensus. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/wrr.12994
- The paper
- 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., Olutoye, O. O., Kirsner, R. S., & Gurtner, G. C. (2022). Chronic wounds: Treatment consensus. Wound Repair and Regeneration. https://doi.org/10.1111/wrr.12994
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.
