HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when Rapid Responses are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Bell, A. L Articles by Cavorsi, J. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Bell, A. L Articles by Cavorsi, J. Related Collections Wound Care Physical Agents/Modalities Social Bookmarking                      What's this?

Author Response

Because this article has no abstract, we have provided an extract of the full text and any section headings.

We thank Robertson for her invited commentary¹ on our retrospective study.² We appreciate the opportunity to clarify our purpose for performing this analysis and the procedural details and rationale for treatments.

We fully recognize the limitations of a retrospective study. At several points in our article, specifically in the abstract and the discussion, we draw attention to the limitations that exist with the use of retrospective analysis. We fully concur that a double-blinded randomized control trial provides the most conclusive form of research. Our study simply described one center's experience with a new wound care intervention that lacked a significant number of research participants.

Further clarification of procedural details and treatment rationale was requested in the commentary. Patients were selected for this modality if their wounds would benefit from cleansing or selective debridement of necrotic tissue, bacteria, and exudate.³ Patients were included in the study if their wounds were not . . . [Full Text of this Article]

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?