Skip to main content
Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

< Back to Article

Table 1.

Overview of cohorts.

More »

Table 1 Expand

Fig 1.

Heatmaps showing the most common comorbidities for the respective databases.

Note: Every number lower than 15 has been changed to 0 due to privacy considerations

More »

Fig 1 Expand

Fig 2.

Histograms showing the proportion of patients in different age spans across wound types and sex.

The area per sex and wound type sums to 1.0. Bars corresponding to less than 15 patients have been changed to 0 due to privacy considerations.

More »

Fig 2 Expand

Table 2.

Data content comparison for patient data.

More »

Table 2 Expand

Table 3.

Data content comparison for wound data.

More »

Table 3 Expand

Fig 3.

A fictional example of a what is typically being captured with regards to Patient and Wound Journey in the respective databases.

More »

Fig 3 Expand

Fig 4.

Wound classification tree for the Wound Monitor database.

The categories traumatic wounds, infected and surgical wounds were originally part of the same category while burns were a category of their own. Discussions with clinicians lead to the structure seen in the figure.

More »

Fig 4 Expand

Fig 5.

Wound classification tree for the RHIP Wound Cohort.

More »

Fig 5 Expand