Ramsay Sarah, Cowan Linda, Davidson Jeffrey M, Nanney Lillian, Schultz Gregory
Research & Development, Smith & Nephew, Inc., Fort Worth, TX, USA.
Center of Innovation for Disability and Rehabilitation Research (CINDRR), North Florida/South Georgia Veterans Health System, Gainesville, FL, USA.
Int Wound J. 2016 Oct;13(5):880-91. doi: 10.1111/iwj.12399. Epub 2015 Jan 11.
Chronic wounds, including diabetic foot ulcers, pressure ulcers and venous leg ulcers, impact the lives of millions of people worldwide. These types of wounds represent a significant physical, social and financial burden to both patients and health care systems. Wound care has made great progress in recent years as a result of the critical research performed in academic, clinical and industrial settings. However, there has been relatively little translation of basic research discoveries into novel and effective treatments. One underlying reason for this paucity may be inconsistency in the methods of wound analysis and sample collection, resulting in the inability of researchers to accurately characterise the healing process and compare results from different studies. This review examines the various types of analytical methods being used in wound research today with emphasis on sampling techniques, processing and storage, and the findings call forth the wound care research community to standardise its approach to wound analysis in order to yield more robust and comparable data sets.
慢性伤口,包括糖尿病足溃疡、压疮和下肢静脉溃疡,影响着全球数百万人的生活。这类伤口给患者和医疗保健系统带来了巨大的身体、社会和经济负担。由于在学术、临床和工业环境中进行了关键研究,近年来伤口护理取得了很大进展。然而,基础研究成果转化为新颖有效的治疗方法的情况相对较少。造成这种匮乏的一个根本原因可能是伤口分析和样本采集方法不一致,导致研究人员无法准确描述愈合过程并比较不同研究的结果。本综述探讨了当今伤口研究中使用的各种分析方法,重点是采样技术、处理和储存,研究结果呼吁伤口护理研究界规范其伤口分析方法,以产生更可靠、更具可比性的数据集。