The Wound Reporting in Animal and Human Preclinical Studies (WRAHPS) guidelines.

IF 1.4 4区 医学 Q3 DERMATOLOGY Wounds : a compendium of clinical research and practice Pub Date : 2025-01-01
Nkemcho Ojeh, Nicole M Vecin, Irena Pastar, Susan W Volk, Traci Wilgus, Sarah Griffiths, Allison N Ramey-Ward, Vickie R Driver, Luisa A DiPietro, Lisa J Gould, Marjana Tomic-Canic
{"title":"The Wound Reporting in Animal and Human Preclinical Studies (WRAHPS) guidelines.","authors":"Nkemcho Ojeh, Nicole M Vecin, Irena Pastar, Susan W Volk, Traci Wilgus, Sarah Griffiths, Allison N Ramey-Ward, Vickie R Driver, Luisa A DiPietro, Lisa J Gould, Marjana Tomic-Canic","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Preclinical studies for wound healing disorders are an essential step in translating discoveries into therapies. Also, they are an integral component of initial safety screening and gaining mechanistic insights using an in vivo approach. Given the complexity of the wound healing process, existing guidelines for animal testing do not capture key information due to the inevitable variability in experimental design. Variations in study interpretation are increased by complexities associated with wound aetiology, wounding procedure, multiple treatment conditions, wound assessment, and analysis, as well as lack of acknowledgement of limitation of the model used. Yet, no standards exist to guide reporting crucial experimental information required to interpret results in translational studies of wound healing. Consistency in reporting allows transparency, comparative, and meta-analysis studies and avoids repetition and redundancy. Therefore, there is a critical and unmet need to standardise reporting for preclinical wound studies. To aid in reporting experimental conditions, The Wound Reporting in Animal and Human Preclinical Studies (WRAHPS) Guidelines have now been created by the authors working with the Wound Care Collaborative Community (WCCC) GAPS group to provide a checklist and reporting template for the most frequently used pre-clinical models in support of development for human clinical trials for wound healing disorders. It is anticipated that the WRAHPS Guidelines will standardise comprehensive methods for reporting in scientific manuscripts and the wound healing field overall. This article is not intended to address regulatory requirements but is intended to provide general guidelines on important scientific considerations for such studies.</p>","PeriodicalId":23752,"journal":{"name":"Wounds : a compendium of clinical research and practice","volume":"37 1","pages":"13-45"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Wounds : a compendium of clinical research and practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"DERMATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Preclinical studies for wound healing disorders are an essential step in translating discoveries into therapies. Also, they are an integral component of initial safety screening and gaining mechanistic insights using an in vivo approach. Given the complexity of the wound healing process, existing guidelines for animal testing do not capture key information due to the inevitable variability in experimental design. Variations in study interpretation are increased by complexities associated with wound aetiology, wounding procedure, multiple treatment conditions, wound assessment, and analysis, as well as lack of acknowledgement of limitation of the model used. Yet, no standards exist to guide reporting crucial experimental information required to interpret results in translational studies of wound healing. Consistency in reporting allows transparency, comparative, and meta-analysis studies and avoids repetition and redundancy. Therefore, there is a critical and unmet need to standardise reporting for preclinical wound studies. To aid in reporting experimental conditions, The Wound Reporting in Animal and Human Preclinical Studies (WRAHPS) Guidelines have now been created by the authors working with the Wound Care Collaborative Community (WCCC) GAPS group to provide a checklist and reporting template for the most frequently used pre-clinical models in support of development for human clinical trials for wound healing disorders. It is anticipated that the WRAHPS Guidelines will standardise comprehensive methods for reporting in scientific manuscripts and the wound healing field overall. This article is not intended to address regulatory requirements but is intended to provide general guidelines on important scientific considerations for such studies.

分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.50
自引率
11.80%
发文量
77
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Wounds is the most widely read, peer-reviewed journal focusing on wound care and wound research. The information disseminated to our readers includes valuable research and commentaries on tissue repair and regeneration, biology and biochemistry of wound healing, and clinical management of various wound etiologies. Our multidisciplinary readership consists of dermatologists, general surgeons, plastic surgeons, vascular surgeons, internal medicine/family practitioners, podiatrists, gerontologists, researchers in industry or academia (PhDs), orthopedic surgeons, infectious disease physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants. These practitioners must be well equipped to deal with a myriad of chronic wound conditions affecting their patients including vascular disease, diabetes, obesity, dermatological disorders, and more. Whether dealing with a traumatic wound, a surgical or non-skin wound, a burn injury, or a diabetic foot ulcer, wound care professionals turn to Wounds for the latest in research and practice in this ever-growing field of medicine.
期刊最新文献
Payers' perspectives on wound care coverage policy determination: what we know and ways to move forward. Retrospective analysis of the effect of vaporous hyperoxia therapy as an adjunct to standard wound care in chronic wounds. The "C-swab" test: a technique for identifying bacteria in sinus tracts or tunneled wounds utilizing a cotton swab and bacterial fluorescence imaging. Assessing the knowledge of patients with diabetes about foot care and prevention of foot complications in Cameroon, West Africa. Atypical mycobacteria infections of surgical sites: a case series.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1