Infection assessment tools for acute and chronic wounds: a scoping review.
Daniella Cristina Julio Lima, Graciele Oroski Paes
PMID 40341447WHAT IT FOUND
Thirty-two tools were mapped for assessing acute and chronic wound infection, mostly through clinical signs such as pain, heat, swelling, redness, pus and odor.
No single sign reliably determines infection, and Brazil lacks validated tools specific for infection.
Key findings
01The review identified 32 tools published from 1995 to 2023, and 26 assessed infection mainly through clinical signs and symptoms.
02No single sign or symptom reliably determines wound infection, and only NERDS and STONES specify how many signs are needed.
03No Brazilian study mapped in this review exclusively evaluates the infectious process in wounds.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for RNs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
This is a scoping review, so it maps available tools rather than testing whether using them improves wound infection diagnosis or patient outcomes. There is no gold standard for wound infection, and the tools mostly rely on signs that can also occur with inflammation or may be subtle in chronic wounds. Most tools do not specify how many clinical features must be present to classify infection; only NERDS and STONES do. The review found no Brazilian tool that exclusively evaluates wound infection, so local validated options may be limited. Technological tools were few and may be limited by cost and availability.
Declared interests
The paper reports financial support from CNPq. No company or commercial sponsor is named in the funding statement.
The easy way to misread this
Do not treat this as evidence that wound infection tools reduce missed infections or improve healing. The review mapped existing tools and found no gold standard and few studies proving routine use works.