The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
IWII Wound Infection in Clinical Practice consensus document: 2022 update
Open accessAbstract
Wound infection is a major challenge for clinicians globally, with accurate and timely identification of wound infection being critical to achieving clinical and cost-effective management, and promotion of healing. This paper presents an overview of the development of the International Wound Infection Institute (IWII)'s 2022 Wound Infection in Clinical Practice consensus document. The updated document summarises current evidence and provides multidisciplinary healthcare providers with effective guidance and support on terminology, paradigms related to biofilm, identification of wound infection, wound cleansing, debridement and antimicrobial stewardship. Integral to the update is revision of wound infection management strategies which are incorporated within the IWII's Wound Infection Continuum (IWII–WIC) and management plan. The aim of the 2022 IWII consensus document update was to provide an accessible and useful clinical resource in at least six languages, incorporating the latest evidence and current best practice for wound infection and prevention. Dissemination techniques for the consensus are discussed and highlighted.
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
RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials
Sterne, J. A. C., Savović, J., Page, M. J., Elbers, R. G., Blencowe, N. S., Boutron, I., Cates, C. J., Cheng, H.-Y., Corbett, M. S., Eldridge, S. M., et al. (2019) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.l4898 · Cited by 34,787
ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions
Sterne, J. A., Hernán, M. A., Reeves, B. C., Savović, J., Berkman, N. D., Viswanathan, M., Henry, D., Altman, D. G., Ansari, M. T., Boutron, I., et al. (2016) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.i4919 · Cited by 20,329
Shea, B. J., Reeves, B. C., Wells, G., Thuku, M., Hamel, C., Moran, J., Moher, D., Tugwell, P., Welch, V., Kristjansson, E., et al. (2017) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.j4008 · Cited by 10,636
Methodology in conducting a systematic review of systematic reviews of healthcare interventions
Smith, V., Devane, D., Begley, C. M., & Clarke, M. (2011) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/1471-2288-11-15 · Cited by 1,227
Postoperative hyperglycemia and surgical site infection in general surgery patients
Ata, A. (2010) · Archives of Surgery · doi:10.1001/archsurg.2010.179 · Cited by 379
Introduction to quality improvement tools for the clinician
Picarillo, A. P. (2018) · Journal of Perinatology · doi:10.1038/s41372-018-0100-4 · Cited by 80
Cited by
Biofilm therapy for chronic wounds
Liu, Y., Long, S., Wang, H., & Wang, Y. (2024) · International Wound Journal · doi:10.1111/iwj.14667 · Cited by 70
Kulayta, K., Zerdo, Z., Seid, M., Dubale, A., Manilal, A., Kebede, T., Alahmadi, R. M., Raman, G., & Akbar, I. (2024) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-024-78283-9 · Cited by 14
Broom, J., Williams Veazey, L., Broom, A., Kee, L., & Choong, K. (2024) · Infection, Disease & Health · doi:10.1016/j.idh.2023.10.002 · Cited by 3
Metadata
- Authors
- Swanson, T., Ousey, K., Haesler, E., Bjarnsholt, T., Carville, K., Idensohn, P., Kalan, L., Keast, D. H., Larsen, D., Percival, S., Schultz, G., Sussman, G., Waters, N., & Weir, D.
- Venue
- Journal of Wound Care
- Publisher
- Mark Allen Group
- Published
- 2022-12-01
- Volume
- 31
- Issue
- Sup12
- Pages
- S10-S21
- ISSN
- 0969-0700 (ISSN-L)
- 2052-2916
- OpenAlex
- W2808436824
- Cited by
- 172
- References
- 6
- FWCI
- 11.03
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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: IWII Wound Infection in Clinical Practice consensus document: 2022 update. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.12968/jowc.2022.31.sup12.s10
- The paper
- Swanson, T., Ousey, K., Haesler, E., Bjarnsholt, T., Carville, K., Idensohn, P., Kalan, L., Keast, D. H., Larsen, D., Percival, S., Schultz, G., Sussman, G., Waters, N., & Weir, D. (2022). IWII Wound Infection in Clinical Practice consensus document: 2022 update. Journal of Wound Care. https://doi.org/10.12968/jowc.2022.31.sup12.s10
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.
