The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Biofilm maturity studies indicate sharp debridement opens a time-dependent therapeutic window
Abstract
Objective: To investigate the hypothesis that newly formed wound biofilms (or bioburdens) are more susceptible to antimicrobial treatment. Method: Four separate and distinct models were performed by four separate biofilm research laboratories to evaluate the resistance of biofilms to antimicrobial treatments over time. These included a drip-flow biofilm model along with a hydrodebridement study, a porcine skin punch biopsy ex vivo model, a mouse chronic wound model and clinical longitudinal debridement study. Results: All four models showed that, within the first 24 hours, the biofilm community was more susceptible to the selected antibiotics, and after maturing for up to 48 hours became increasingly tolerant. In each model, there was at least a 24-hour period in which the biofilms were more resistant to antibiotics. Each of the models utilised showed a significant decrease in the resistance of the biofilm/burden to gentamicin for up to 24 hours with a confidence interval of at least 95%. The resistance increased in each of the models by 48 hours and reached original resistance levels by 72 hours. Conclusion: These data suggest the principles of biofilm-based wound care, along with the use of serial debridement to continually remove mature biofilm, followed by biofilm wound management strategies, including topical antibiotics while the bioburden is still immature and more susceptible, are valid. Conflict of interest: SED is director of Research and Testing Laboratory, a commercial laboratory that develops molecular methods for diagnosis of wounds and infections and CEO of Pathogenius Laboratories, which is a molecular pathogen diagnostic company with a focus on chronic wounds. RDW is medical director of Southwest Regional Wound Care Center and inventor of biofilm-based wound care principles.
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
Biofilms: Survival Mechanisms of Clinically Relevant Microorganisms
Donlan, R. M., & Costerton, J. W. (2002) · Clinical Microbiology Reviews · doi:10.1128/cmr.15.2.167-193.2002 · Cited by 6,644
The Involvement of Cell-to-Cell Signals in the Development of a Bacterial Biofilm
Davies, D. G., Parsek, M. R., Pearson, J. P., Iglewski, B. H., Costerton, J. W., & Greenberg, E. P. (1998) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.280.5361.295 · Cited by 3,396
Pseudomonas aeruginosa Displays Multiple Phenotypes during Development as a Biofilm
Sauer, K., Camper, A. K., Ehrlich, G. D., Costerton, J. W., & Davies, D. G. (2002) · Journal of Bacteriology · doi:10.1128/jb.184.4.1140-1154.2002 · Cited by 1,691
Schmook, F. P., Meingassner, J. G., & Billich, A. (2001) · International Journal of Pharmaceutics · doi:10.1016/s0378-5173(00)00665-7 · Cited by 529
Cited by
Biofilm, pathogenesis and prevention—a journey to break the wall: a review
Gupta, P., Sarkar, S., Das, B., Bhattacharjee, S., & Tribedi, P. (2016) · Archives of Microbiology · doi:10.1007/s00203-015-1148-6 · Cited by 493
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-citationAntimicrobial Tolerance in Biofilms
Stewart, P. S. (2015) · Microbiology Spectrum · doi:10.1128/microbiolspec.mb-0010-2014 · Cited by 450
Self-citationChronic 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-citationAn in vivo polymicrobial biofilm wound infection model to study interspecies interactions
Dalton, T., Dowd, S. E., Wolcott, R. D., Sun, Y., Watters, C., Griswold, J. A., & Rumbaugh, K. P. (2011) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0027317 · Cited by 372
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Wolcott, R. D., Rumbaugh, K. P., James, G., Schultz, G., Phillips, P., Yang, Q., Watters, C., Stewart, P. S., & Dowd, S. E.
- Venue
- Journal of Wound Care
- Publisher
- Mark Allen Group
- Published
- 2010-08
- Volume
- 19
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 320-328
- ISSN
- 0969-0700 (ISSN-L)
- 2052-2916
- OpenAlex
- W2051547677
- Cited by
- 423
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 6.85
- 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: Biofilm maturity studies indicate sharp debridement opens a time-dependent therapeutic window. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.12968/jowc.2010.19.8.77709
- The paper
- Wolcott, R. D., Rumbaugh, K. P., James, G., Schultz, G., Phillips, P., Yang, Q., Watters, C., Stewart, P. S., & Dowd, S. E. (2010). Biofilm maturity studies indicate sharp debridement opens a time-dependent therapeutic window. Journal of Wound Care. https://doi.org/10.12968/jowc.2010.19.8.77709
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.