Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 183

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Survey of fungi and yeast in polymicrobial infections in chronic wounds

Dowd, S.E., Delton Hanson, J., Rees, E., Wolcott, R.D., Zischau, A.M., Sun, Y., White, J., Smith, D.M., Kennedy, J., Jones, C.E.·2011·Journal of Wound Care

Abstract

Objective: To assess the incidence, abundance and species diversity of fungi in chronic wounds, as well as to describe the associations of major fungi populations. Method: Comprehensive molecular diagnostic reports were evaluated from a total of 915 chronic wounds in a retrospective study. Results: Of the 915 clinical specimens, 208 (23%) were positive for fungal species. These samples were further compared in a compiled dataset, and sub-classified among the four major chronic wound types (decubitus ulcer, diabetic foot ulcer, non-healing surgical wound, and venous leg ulcer). The most abundant fungi were yeasts in the genus Candida; however, Curvularia, Malessezia, Aureobasidium, Cladosporium, Ulocladium, Engodontium and Trichtophyton were also found to be prevalent components of these polymicrobial infections. A notable bacterial/fungal negative correlation was found to be apparent between Staphylococcus and Candida. There were also significant relationships between both bacterial and fungal genera and patient metadata including gender, diabetes status and cardiovascular comorbidities. Conclusion: This microbial survey shows that fungi are more important wound pathogens and opportunistic pathogens than previously reported, exemplifying the impact of these under-reported pathogens. With the application of modern cost-effective and comprehensive molecular diagnostics, clinicians can now identify and address this significant component of chronic wound bioburden with targeted therapies, thereby improving healing trajectories. Conflict of interest: SED and RW are owners of Pathogenius Diagnostics which is a clinical diagnostic laboratory, SED and RW are owners of Research and Testing Laboratory which develops molecular methods for clinical diagnostics. JK and CEJ are owners of SEMT which licenses lipogels for 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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.12968/jowc.2011.20.1.40

Cites

5 of 5 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

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

Show all 5 references

Cited by

See all 183

Metadata

Authors
Dowd, S. E., Delton Hanson, J., Rees, E., Wolcott, R. D., Zischau, A. M., Sun, Y., White, J., Smith, D. M., Kennedy, J., & Jones, C. E.
Venue
Journal of Wound Care
Published
2011-01
Volume
20
Issue
1
Pages
40-47
ISSN
  • 0969-0700 (ISSN-L)
  • 2052-2916
OpenAlex
W2099209347
Cited by
183
References
5
FWCI
9.41
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: Survey of fungi and yeast in polymicrobial infections in chronic wounds. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.12968/jowc.2011.20.1.40
The paper
Dowd, S. E., Delton Hanson, J., Rees, E., Wolcott, R. D., Zischau, A. M., Sun, Y., White, J., Smith, D. M., Kennedy, J., & Jones, C. E. (2011). Survey of fungi and yeast in polymicrobial infections in chronic wounds. Journal of Wound Care. https://doi.org/10.12968/jowc.2011.20.1.40

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.