A scoping review protocol to identify clinical signs, symptoms and biomarkers indicative of biofilm presence in chronic wounds

Introduction: Wound healing is characterised by haemostatic, inflammatory, proliferative and remodelling phases. In the presence of comorbidities such as diabetes, healing can stall and chronic wounds may result. Infection is detrimental to these wounds and associated with poor outcomes. Wounds are contaminated with microbes and debris, and factors such as host resistance, bacterial virulence, species synergy and bioburden determine whether a wound will deteriorate to critically colonised/infected states. Biofilms are sessile microbial communities, exhibiting high-level antibiotic tolerance and resistance to host defences. Biofilm in critically colonised wounds can contribute to delayed healing. Little is known about clinical presentation and diagnosis of wound biofilms. Objective: To identify from the literature clinical signs, symptoms and biomarkers that may indicate biofilm presence in chronic wounds. Methods: This review will be guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR), and the Joanna Briggs Institute Manual for Evidence Synthesis. Studies of any design in any language recruiting adult patients with venous, diabetic, pressure or mixed arterial-venous ulcers and reporting data on clinical signs/symptoms of biofilm are eligible. Searches of Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Central and BASE will be conducted from inception to present. Reference scanning and contact with content experts will be employed. Title/abstract screening and full text selection will be executed by two reviewers independently. Discrepancies will be resolved by discussion between reviewers or through third party intervention. Data will be extracted by a single reviewer and verified by a second. Clinical signs and symptoms data will be presented in terms of study design, setting and participant demographic data. Discussion: Understanding biofilm impact on chronic wounds is inconsistent and based largely on in vitro research. This work will consolidate clinical signs, symptoms and biomarkers of biofilm in chronic wounds reported in the literature.

[1]  B. Barrois,et al.  Update on the role of antiseptics in the management of chronic wounds with critical colonisation and/or biofilm , 2020, International wound journal.

[2]  J. Guest,et al.  Cohort study evaluating the burden of wounds to the UK’s National Health Service in 2017/2018: update from 2012/2013 , 2020, BMJ Open.

[3]  V. Goodwin,et al.  Scoping reviews. , 2019, Physiotherapy.

[4]  K. Järbrink,et al.  Prevalence of chronic wounds in the general population: systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. , 2019, Annals of epidemiology.

[5]  J. McGowan,et al.  PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation , 2018, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[6]  G. Gethin,et al.  Antimicrobial dressings for treating local infection in patients with diabetic foot ulcers , 2018 .

[7]  K. Järbrink,et al.  Need for Improved Definition of "Chronic Wounds" in Clinical Studies. , 2018, Acta dermato-venereologica.

[8]  S. Kapp,et al.  The financial and quality‐of‐life cost to patients living with a chronic wound in the community , 2017, International wound journal.

[9]  G. James,et al.  Consensus guidelines for the identification and treatment of biofilms in chronic nonhealing wounds , 2017, Wound repair and regeneration : official publication of the Wound Healing Society [and] the European Tissue Repair Society.

[10]  R. Ceilley,et al.  Chronic Wound Healing: A Review of Current Management and Treatments , 2017, Advances in Therapy.

[11]  O. Franco,et al.  Bacterial Contribution in Chronicity of Wounds , 2017, Microbial Ecology.

[12]  Hossam M. Hammady,et al.  Rayyan—a web and mobile app for systematic reviews , 2016, Systematic Reviews.

[13]  B. Conlon,et al.  Convergence of Staphylococcus aureus Persister and Biofilm Research: Can Biofilms Be Defined as Communities of Adherent Persister Cells? , 2016, PLoS pathogens.

[14]  J. McGowan,et al.  PRESS Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies: 2015 Guideline Statement. , 2016, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[15]  Fares Alahdab,et al.  New evidence pyramid , 2016, Evidence-Based Medicine.

[16]  R. Frykberg,et al.  Challenges in the Treatment of Chronic Wounds , 2015, Advances in wound care.

[17]  Benjamin A Lipsky,et al.  Biofilms and Wounds: An Overview of the Evidence. , 2015, Advances in wound care.

[18]  A. Oliver,et al.  ESCMID guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of biofilm infections 2014. , 2015, Clinical microbiology and infection : the official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases.

[19]  F. Bowling,et al.  The Visualization of Biofilms in Chronic Diabetic Foot Wounds Using Routine Diagnostic Microscopy Methods , 2014, Journal of diabetes research.

[20]  P. Bowler,et al.  A clinical algorithm for wound biofilm identification. , 2014, Journal of wound care.

[21]  Thomas Bjarnsholt,et al.  The in vivo biofilm. , 2013, Trends in microbiology.

[22]  Jacqueline Fletcher,et al.  Extending the TIME concept: what have we learned in the past 10 years? * , 2012, International wound journal.

[23]  Abdul R Siddiqui,et al.  Chronic wound infection: facts and controversies. , 2010, Clinics in dermatology.

[24]  P. Bowler,et al.  Clinical experience with wound biofilm and management: a case series. , 2009, Ostomy/wound management.

[25]  Mary Shultz,et al.  Comparing test searches in PubMed and Google Scholar. , 2007, Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA.

[26]  D. Lange [Chronic wounds]. , 2000, Krankenpflege Journal.