The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Consensus on Wound Antisepsis: Update 2018
Abstract
Wound antisepsis has undergone a renaissance due to the introduction of highly effective wound-compatible antimicrobial agents and the spread of multidrug-resistant organisms (MDROs). However, a strict indication must be set for the application of these agents. An infected or critically colonized wound must be treated antiseptically. In addition, systemic antibiotic therapy is required in case the infection spreads. If applied preventively, the Wounds-at-Risk Score allows an assessment of the risk for infection and thus appropriateness of the indication. The content of this updated consensus recommendation still largely consists of discussing properties of octenidine dihydrochloride (OCT), polihexanide, and iodophores. The evaluations of hypochlorite, taurolidine, and silver ions have been updated. For critically colonized and infected chronic wounds as well as for burns, polihexanide is classified as the active agent of choice. The combination 0.1% OCT/phenoxyethanol (PE) solution is suitable for acute, contaminated, and traumatic wounds, including MRSA-colonized wounds due to its deep action. For chronic wounds, preparations with 0.05% OCT are preferable. For bite, stab/puncture, and gunshot wounds, polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP)-iodine is the first choice, while polihexanide and hypochlorite are superior to PVP-iodine for the treatment of contaminated acute and chronic wounds. For the decolonization of wounds colonized or infected with MDROs, the combination of OCT/PE is preferred. For peritoneal rinsing or rinsing of other cavities with a lack of drainage potential as well as the risk of central nervous system exposure, hypochlorite is the superior active agent. Silver-sulfadiazine is classified as dispensable, while dyes, organic mercury compounds, and hydrogen peroxide alone are classified as obsolete. As promising prospects, acetic acid, the combination of negative pressure wound therapy with the instillation of antiseptics (NPWTi), and cold atmospheric plasma are also subjects of this assessment.
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
Determination of minimum inhibitory concentrations
Andrews, J. M. (2001) · Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy · doi:10.1093/jac/48.suppl_1.5 · Cited by 4,129
Cited by
Challenges in the management of chronic wound infections
Falcone, M., De Angelis, B., Pea, F., Scalise, A., Stefani, S., Tasinato, R., Zanetti, O., & Dalla Paola, L. (2021) · Journal of Global Antimicrobial Resistance · doi:10.1016/j.jgar.2021.05.010 · Cited by 339
Severing, A.-L., Rembe, J.-D., Koester, V., & Stuermer, E. K. (2019) · Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy · doi:10.1093/jac/dky432 · Cited by 120
Direct metagenomics investigation of non-surgical hard-to-heal wounds: a review
Morsli, M., Salipante, F., Magnan, C., Dunyach-Remy, C., Sotto, A., & Lavigne, J.-P. (2024) · Annals of Clinical Microbiology and Antimicrobials · doi:10.1186/s12941-024-00698-z · Cited by 26
Supporting wound infection diagnosis: advancements and challenges with electronic noses
Wörner, J., Moelleken, M., Dissemond, J., & Pein-Hackelbusch, M. (2023) · Frontiers in Sensors · doi:10.3389/fsens.2023.1250756 · Cited by 8
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Kramer, A., Dissemond, J., Kim, S., Willy, C., Mayer, D., Papke, R., Tuchmann, F., & Assadian, O.
- Venue
- Skin Pharmacology and Physiology
- Publisher
- S. Karger AG
- Published
- 2017-12-21
- Volume
- 31
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 28-58
- ISSN
- 1422-2868 (ISSN-L)
- 1660-5527
- 1660-5535
- OpenAlex
- W2780927528
- Cited by
- 332
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 16.92
- 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: Consensus on Wound Antisepsis: Update 2018. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1159/000481545
- The paper
- Kramer, A., Dissemond, J., Kim, S., Willy, C., Mayer, D., Papke, R., Tuchmann, F., & Assadian, O. (2018). Consensus on Wound Antisepsis: Update 2018. Skin Pharmacology and Physiology. https://doi.org/10.1159/000481545
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.