Wound Infection BacterialNCT07325786
Percutaneous Wound Sampling With Analysis in Blood Culture (PERKA-B) Method
A study testing Tissue culture collection in people with Wound Infection Bacterial and Identification, run by Prof. Dr. Bülent M. Ertuğrul at 1 site in Turkey (Türkiye).
Trial summary
The aim of this study was to evaluate whether there is a difference in pathogen detection rates when tissue samples obtained from infected wound sites are processed using standard microbiological methods compared with inoculation into blood culture bottles using a predefined protocol. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 years and older
- Conditions the study is for
- Wound Infection Bacterial, Identification
- What is being tested?
- Tissue culture collection
- Type of treatment
- Injection or infusion, Surgery or procedure
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 300 participants
- Where
- 1 siteTurkey (Türkiye)
- Study dates
- 5 Dec 2025to 1 Apr 2026
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- Not yet: the study is under way
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 years and older
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Patients with infected wounds
Who cannot join
- Under 18 years of age
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
Turkey (Türkiye)1 site
Başakşehir Çam and Sakura City Hospital, Department of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery
Istanbul, 34480
About this study
Official title: A Novel Method for the Examination of Infected Wound Specimens: Percutaneous Wound Sampling With Analysis in Blood Culture (PERKA-B) Method
The aim of this study was to evaluate whether there is a difference in pathogen detection rates when tissue samples obtained from infected wound sites are processed using standard microbiological methods compared with inoculation into blood culture bottles using a predefined protocol.
Read the detailed description
Wound infections represent a major global public health problem from clinical, epidemiological, and economic perspectives. Although the incidence of surgical site infections varies by region, the global rate is estimated to be approximately 2-3% . Chronic wounds, such as diabetic foot ulcers, venous ulcers, and pressure ulcers, constitute a similarly significant burden, with their prevalence increasing steadily worldwide. Recent estimates indicate that global expenditures related to wounds and wound infections have reached 148 billion US dollars. A substantial proportion of these costs is attributable to prolonged hospitalizations and antibiotic therapy.
Rational antibiotic use in wound infections relies primarily on the identification of the causative pathogen and determination of its antimicrobial susceptibility profile through microbiological examination of appropriate clinical specimens. Because superficially collected samples carry a high risk of contamination, deep tissue biopsy or aspirate specimens are generally considered more reliable than swab samples. In routine clinical microbiology practice, standard examination of wound specimens involves inoculation onto 5% sheep blood agar in combination with MacConkey or eosin methylene blue (EMB) agar. These media are incubated at 35°C for 24 hours and subsequently evaluated. If no growth is observed, incubation is extended for an additional 24 hours, and cultures without growth after 48 hours are reported as negative. When growth is detected, further identification of the isolates is performed.
Despite meticulous specimen collection, a substantial proportion of wound samples continue to yield negative culture results. Previous investigations have documented culture-negative rates of approximately 12% in diabetic foot infections, 19% in chronic wound infections, and 10-15% in surgical site infections. In such circumstances, clinicians are often obliged to initiate empirical antimicrobial therapy when microbiological analyses fail to identify a causative pathogen, despite strong clinical evidence of infection. This approach may lead to unwarranted antibiotic administration or reliance on broad-spectrum agents, thereby increasing the risk of adverse patient outcomes and contributing to elevated healthcare expenditures. Consequently, refinement of microbiological diagnostic techniques is imperative to ensure accurate pathogen identification and to facilitate the rational selection of antimicrobial therapy.
Media used in automated blood culture systems are enriched compared with conventional solid media, such as 5% sheep blood agar, MacConkey agar, and EMB agar, and are specifically designed to enhance microbial recovery. In addition, the longer incubation periods used in these systems may further improve pathogen detection. Although blood culture systems are routinely used to detect microorganisms in blood samples obtained from peripheral veins of patients with suspected bloodstream infections, there is currently no standardized protocol for the inoculation of non-blood clinical specimens into blood culture bottles.
- Conditions
- Wound Infection Bacterial, Identification
- Being tested
- Tissue culture collection
- Keywords
- Wound infection, Causative bacteria, Culture method
- Medical subject headings
- Wound Infection
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Tissue culture collectionProcedure or surgery
After removal of necrotic tissue under sterile conditions, an adequate tissue specimen was obtained from the infected area using surgical techniques and placed into a sterile plain tube.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Percutaneous Wound Sampling with Analysis in Blood Culture (PERKA-B) Method | Experimental | Percutaneous Wound Sampling with Analysis in Blood Culture (PERKA-B) Method:
Tissue samples were homogenized in 5 mL of sterile saline and vortexed at 2800-3000 rpm for 2 minutes. An aliquot was collected for standard culture, after which the remaining suspension was aseptically aspirated using a 5 mL sterile syringe and inoculated into a blood culture bottle. The inoculated bottles were incubated in an automated blood culture system, and growth signals were continuously monitored. The maximum incubation period was set at 5 days; samples with no growth signal at the end of this period were considered negative.
Upon detection of microbial growth, a sample from the blood culture bottle was subcultured onto 5% sheep blood agar and MacConkey agar plates and incubated aerobically at 35°C. Culture plates were examined for microbial growth at 24 hours. If no growth was observed, incubation was continued and plates were re-examined at 48 hours post-inoculation. Receives: Procedure: Tissue culture collection |
| Standart Microbiological analyses | Experimental | Five milliliters (mL) of sterile saline were added to the sterile tube containing the tissue specimen. The tube was mixed for 2 minutes using a vortex mixer set at 2800-3000 revolutions per minute (rpm).
From the resulting fluid suspension, 0.05 mL was inoculated onto 5% sheep blood agar and MacConkey agar using a sterile loop under aseptic conditions. The inoculated 5% sheep blood agar and MacConkey agar plates were incubated at 35°C. 5% sheep blood agar and MacConkey agar'a inocule edilen Culture plates were examined for microbial growth at 24 hours. If no growth was observed, the plates were re-incubated and re-evaluated at 48 hours after inoculation. Receives: Procedure: Tissue culture collection |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Conventional culture vs PERKA-B Method
In this study, diagnostic performance measures will be calculated to evaluate the classification performance of blood culture relative to conventional culture in terms of positive and negative results.
Measured: 3 months
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted8 Jan 2026
- Study start5 Dec 2025
- Primary completion1 Feb 2026 (estimated)
- Study completion1 Apr 2026 (estimated)
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (9)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Wound Infection BacterialStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Diagnosis
- Allocation
- Non-randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Model description
- Percutaneous Wound Sampling with Analysis in Blood Culture (PERKA-B) Method: Tissue samples were homogenized in 5 mL of sterile saline and vortexed at 2800-3000 rpm for 2 minutes. An aliquot was collected for standard culture, after which the remaining suspension was aseptically aspirated using a 5 mL sterile syringe and inoculated into a blood culture bottle. The inoculated bottles were incubated in an automated blood culture system, and growth signals were continuously monitored. The maximum incubation period was set at 5 days; samples with no growth signal at the end of this period were considered negative. Upon detection of microbial growth, a sample from the blood culture bottle was subcultured onto 5% sheep blood agar and MacConkey agar plates and incubated aerobically at 35°C. Culture plates were examined for microbial growth at 24 hours. If no growth was observed, incubation was continued and plates were re-examined at 48 hours post-inoculation.
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Enrolment
- 300 participants (estimated)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Prof. Dr. Bülent M. Ertuğrul
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Başakşehir Çam & Sakura City Hospital
- Responsible party
- Sponsor-investigator, Prof. Dr. Bülent M. Ertuğrul, Aydin Adnan Menderes University
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07325786
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- ADU-PERKAB-WOUND
- Status last verified
- Jan 2026
- First submitted
- 24 Dec 2025
- Last updated
- 9 Jan 2026
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- Yes
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- Yes: Microbiological data from tissue samples taken from infected wound of patients will be shared.
Publications
Swanson T, Ousey K, Haesler E, Bjarnsholt T, Carville K, Idensohn P, Kalan L, Keast DH, Larsen D, Percival S, Schultz G, Sussman G, Waters N, Weir D. IWII Wound Infection in Clinical Practice consensus document: 2022 update. J Wound Care. 2022 Dec 1;31(Sup12):S10-S21. doi: 10.12968/jowc.2022.31.Sup12.S10.
PubMed 36475844Senneville E, Albalawi Z, van Asten SA, Abbas ZG, Allison G, Aragon-Sanchez J, Embil JM, Lavery LA, Alhasan M, Oz O, Uckay I, Urbancic-Rovan V, Xu ZR, Peters EJG. IWGDF/IDSA guidelines on the diagnosis and treatment of diabetes-related foot infections (IWGDF/IDSA 2023). Diabetes Metab Res Rev. 2024 Mar;40(3):e3687. doi: 10.1002/dmrr.3687. Epub 2023 Oct 1.
PubMed 37779323Rondas AA, Halfens RJ, Schols JM, Thiesen KP, Trienekens TA, Stobberingh EE. Is a wound swab for microbiological analysis supportive in the clinical assessment of infection of a chronic wound? Future Microbiol. 2015;10(11):1815-24. doi: 10.2217/fmb.15.97.
PubMed 26597427Krukerink M, Kievit J, Marang-van de Mheen PJ. Evaluation of routinely reported surgical site infections against microbiological culture results: a tool to identify patient groups where diagnosis and treatment may be improved. BMC Infect Dis. 2009 Nov 10;9:176. doi: 10.1186/1471-2334-9-176.
PubMed 19900294Macdonald KE, Boeckh S, Stacey HJ, Jones JD. The microbiology of diabetic foot infections: a meta-analysis. BMC Infect Dis. 2021 Aug 9;21(1):770. doi: 10.1186/s12879-021-06516-7.
PubMed 34372789Stevens DL, Bisno AL, Chambers HF, Dellinger EP, Goldstein EJ, Gorbach SL, Hirschmann JV, Kaplan SL, Montoya JG, Wade JC; Infectious Diseases Society of America. Practice guidelines for the diagnosis and management of skin and soft tissue infections: 2014 update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Clin Infect Dis. 2014 Jul 15;59(2):e10-52. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciu444.
PubMed 24973422Ertugrul B, Uckay I, Schoni M, Peter-Riesch B, Lipsky BA. Management of diabetic foot infections in the light of recent literature and new international guidelines. Expert Rev Anti Infect Ther. 2020 Apr;18(4):293-305. doi: 10.1080/14787210.2020.1730177. Epub 2020 Feb 19.
PubMed 32052672Sen CK. Human Wound and Its Burden: Updated 2025 Compendium of Estimates. Adv Wound Care (New Rochelle). 2025 Sep;14(9):429-438. doi: 10.1177/21621918251359554. Epub 2025 Jul 14.
PubMed 40660772Mengistu DA, Alemu A, Abdukadir AA, Mohammed Husen A, Ahmed F, Mohammed B, Musa I. Global Incidence of Surgical Site Infection Among Patients: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Inquiry. 2023 Jan-Dec;60:469580231162549. doi: 10.1177/00469580231162549.
PubMed 36964747
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 9 Jan 2026. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- A Novel Method for the Examination of Infected Wound Specimens: Percutaneous Wound Sampling With Analysis in Blood Culture (PERKA-B) Method
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07325786
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- ADU-PERKAB-WOUND
- Conditions
- Wound Infection Bacterial, Identification
- Keywords
- Wound infection, Causative bacteria, Culture method
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Active, not recruiting
- Enrolment
- 300 participants (estimated)
- Lead sponsor
- Prof. Dr. Bülent M. ErtuğrulUniversity, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Başakşehir Çam & Sakura City Hospital
- Study start
- 5 Dec 2025 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 1 Feb 2026 (estimated)
- Study completion
- 1 Apr 2026 (estimated)
- First posted
- 8 Jan 2026 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
The aim of this study was to evaluate whether there is a difference in pathogen detection rates when tissue samples obtained from infected wound sites are processed using standard microbiological methods compared with inoculation into blood culture bottles using a predefined protocol.
Detailed description
Wound infections represent a major global public health problem from clinical, epidemiological, and economic perspectives. Although the incidence of surgical site infections varies by region, the global rate is estimated to be approximately 2-3% . Chronic wounds, such as diabetic foot ulcers, venous ulcers, and pressure ulcers, constitute a similarly significant burden, with their prevalence increasing steadily worldwide. Recent estimates indicate that global expenditures related to wounds and wound infections have reached 148 billion US dollars. A substantial proportion of these costs is attributable to prolonged hospitalizations and antibiotic therapy.
Rational antibiotic use in wound infections relies primarily on the identification of the causative pathogen and determination of its antimicrobial susceptibility profile through microbiological examination of appropriate clinical specimens. Because superficially collected samples carry a high risk of contamination, deep tissue biopsy or aspirate specimens are generally considered more reliable than swab samples. In routine clinical microbiology practice, standard examination of wound specimens involves inoculation onto 5% sheep blood agar in combination with MacConkey or eosin methylene blue (EMB) agar. These media are incubated at 35°C for 24 hours and subsequently evaluated. If no growth is observed, incubation is extended for an additional 24 hours, and cultures without growth after 48 hours are reported as negative. When growth is detected, further identification of the isolates is performed.
Despite meticulous specimen collection, a substantial proportion of wound samples continue to yield negative culture results. Previous investigations have documented culture-negative rates of approximately 12% in diabetic foot infections, 19% in chronic wound infections, and 10-15% in surgical site infections. In such circumstances, clinicians are often obliged to initiate empirical antimicrobial therapy when microbiological analyses fail to identify a causative pathogen, despite strong clinical evidence of infection. This approach may lead to unwarranted antibiotic administration or reliance on broad-spectrum agents, thereby increasing the risk of adverse patient outcomes and contributing to elevated healthcare expenditures. Consequently, refinement of microbiological diagnostic techniques is imperative to ensure accurate pathogen identification and to facilitate the rational selection of antimicrobial therapy.
Media used in automated blood culture systems are enriched compared with conventional solid media, such as 5% sheep blood agar, MacConkey agar, and EMB agar, and are specifically designed to enhance microbial recovery. In addition, the longer incubation periods used in these systems may further improve pathogen detection. Although blood culture systems are routinely used to detect microorganisms in blood samples obtained from peripheral veins of patients with suspected bloodstream infections, there is currently no standardized protocol for the inoculation of non-blood clinical specimens into blood culture bottles.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Diagnosis
- Allocation
- Non-randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Number of arms
- 2
- Model description
- Percutaneous Wound Sampling with Analysis in Blood Culture (PERKA-B) Method: Tissue samples were homogenized in 5 mL of sterile saline and vortexed at 2800-3000 rpm for 2 minutes. An aliquot was collected for standard culture, after which the remaining suspension was aseptically aspirated using a 5 mL sterile syringe and inoculated into a blood culture bottle. The inoculated bottles were incubated in an automated blood culture system, and growth signals were continuously monitored. The maximum incubation period was set at 5 days; samples with no growth signal at the end of this period were considered negative. Upon detection of microbial growth, a sample from the blood culture bottle was subcultured onto 5% sheep blood agar and MacConkey agar plates and incubated aerobically at 35°C. Culture plates were examined for microbial growth at 24 hours. If no growth was observed, incubation was continued and plates were re-examined at 48 hours post-inoculation.
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Percutaneous Wound Sampling with Analysis in Blood Culture (PERKA-B) Method | Experimental | Procedure: Tissue culture collectionPercutaneous Wound Sampling with Analysis in Blood Culture (PERKA-B) Method: Tissue samples were homogenized in 5 mL of sterile saline and vortexed at 2800-3000 rpm for 2 minutes. An aliquot was collected for standard culture, after which the remaining suspension was aseptically aspirated using a 5 mL sterile syringe and inoculated into a blood culture bottle. The inoculated bottles were incubated in an automated blood culture system, and growth signals were continuously monitored. The maximum incubation period was set at 5 days; samples with no growth signal at the end of this period were considered negative. Upon detection of microbial growth, a sample from the blood culture bottle was subcultured onto 5% sheep blood agar and MacConkey agar plates and incubated aerobically at 35°C. Culture plates were examined for microbial growth at 24 hours. If no growth was observed, incubation was continued and plates were re-examined at 48 hours post-inoculation. |
| Standart Microbiological analyses | Experimental | Procedure: Tissue culture collectionFive milliliters (mL) of sterile saline were added to the sterile tube containing the tissue specimen. The tube was mixed for 2 minutes using a vortex mixer set at 2800-3000 revolutions per minute (rpm). From the resulting fluid suspension, 0.05 mL was inoculated onto 5% sheep blood agar and MacConkey agar using a sterile loop under aseptic conditions. The inoculated 5% sheep blood agar and MacConkey agar plates were incubated at 35°C. 5% sheep blood agar and MacConkey agar'a inocule edilen Culture plates were examined for microbial growth at 24 hours. If no growth was observed, the plates were re-incubated and re-evaluated at 48 hours after inoculation. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (1 listed)
- Patients with infected wounds
Key exclusion criteria (1 listed)
- Under 18 years of age
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Tissue culture collectionAfter removal of necrotic tissue under sterile conditions, an adequate tissue specimen was obtained from the infected area using surgical techniques and placed into a sterile plain tube. | Procedure or surgery | Percutaneous Wound Sampling with Analysis in Blood Culture (PERKA-B) Method, Standart Microbiological analyses |
Primary outcome
Conventional culture vs PERKA-B Method
Time frame: 3 months
In this study, diagnostic performance measures will be calculated to evaluate the classification performance of blood culture relative to conventional culture in terms of positive and negative results.
Results and safety
This study is still under way. Results are not available in the source record yet.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 9 Jan 2026.
- Background: PubMed 36475844Swanson T, Ousey K, Haesler E, Bjarnsholt T, Carville K, Idensohn P, Kalan L, Keast DH, Larsen D, Percival S, Schultz G, Sussman G, Waters N, Weir D. IWII Wound Infection in Clinical Practice consensus document: 2022 update. J Wound Care. 2022 Dec 1;31(Sup12):S10-S21. doi: 10.12968/jowc.2022.31.Sup12.S10.
- Background: PubMed 37779323Senneville E, Albalawi Z, van Asten SA, Abbas ZG, Allison G, Aragon-Sanchez J, Embil JM, Lavery LA, Alhasan M, Oz O, Uckay I, Urbancic-Rovan V, Xu ZR, Peters EJG. IWGDF/IDSA guidelines on the diagnosis and treatment of diabetes-related foot infections (IWGDF/IDSA 2023). Diabetes Metab Res Rev. 2024 Mar;40(3):e3687. doi: 10.1002/dmrr.3687. Epub 2023 Oct 1.
- Background: PubMed 26597427Rondas AA, Halfens RJ, Schols JM, Thiesen KP, Trienekens TA, Stobberingh EE. Is a wound swab for microbiological analysis supportive in the clinical assessment of infection of a chronic wound? Future Microbiol. 2015;10(11):1815-24. doi: 10.2217/fmb.15.97.
- Background: PubMed 19900294Krukerink M, Kievit J, Marang-van de Mheen PJ. Evaluation of routinely reported surgical site infections against microbiological culture results: a tool to identify patient groups where diagnosis and treatment may be improved. BMC Infect Dis. 2009 Nov 10;9:176. doi: 10.1186/1471-2334-9-176.
- Background: PubMed 34372789Macdonald KE, Boeckh S, Stacey HJ, Jones JD. The microbiology of diabetic foot infections: a meta-analysis. BMC Infect Dis. 2021 Aug 9;21(1):770. doi: 10.1186/s12879-021-06516-7.
- Background: PubMed 24973422Stevens DL, Bisno AL, Chambers HF, Dellinger EP, Goldstein EJ, Gorbach SL, Hirschmann JV, Kaplan SL, Montoya JG, Wade JC; Infectious Diseases Society of America. Practice guidelines for the diagnosis and management of skin and soft tissue infections: 2014 update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Clin Infect Dis. 2014 Jul 15;59(2):e10-52. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciu444.
- Background: PubMed 32052672Ertugrul B, Uckay I, Schoni M, Peter-Riesch B, Lipsky BA. Management of diabetic foot infections in the light of recent literature and new international guidelines. Expert Rev Anti Infect Ther. 2020 Apr;18(4):293-305. doi: 10.1080/14787210.2020.1730177. Epub 2020 Feb 19.
- Background: PubMed 40660772Sen CK. Human Wound and Its Burden: Updated 2025 Compendium of Estimates. Adv Wound Care (New Rochelle). 2025 Sep;14(9):429-438. doi: 10.1177/21621918251359554. Epub 2025 Jul 14.
- Background: PubMed 36964747Mengistu DA, Alemu A, Abdukadir AA, Mohammed Husen A, Ahmed F, Mohammed B, Musa I. Global Incidence of Surgical Site Infection Among Patients: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Inquiry. 2023 Jan-Dec;60:469580231162549. doi: 10.1177/00469580231162549.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: Yes. Microbiological data from tissue samples taken from infected wound of patients will be shared.
Related trials for Wound Infection Bacterial
RecruitingObservational study
Rare Disease Patient Registry & Natural History Study - Coordination of Rare Diseases at Sanford
Rare Disorders, Undiagnosed Disorders
Enrolling by invitationObservational study
Prevention of Vaginal Cuff Infection After Hysterectomy by Addition of Vaginal Clindamycin
Surgical Site Infection, Vaginal Cuff Cellulitis
Not yet recruitingEarly Phase 1
Silymarin Versus N-Acetylcysteine as Protective Effect Against Anti-tuberculosis Drugs Induced Liver Injury.
Drug-Induced Acute Liver Injury, Tuberculosis (TB)
Not yet recruitingObservational study
Differentiating True Nephrotoxicity From Pseudo-nephrotoxicity: A Prospective Comparative Study of Vancomycin Plus Piperacillin-Tazobactam vs. Meropenem Using Serum Creatinine and Cystatin-C
Nephrotoxicity, Bacterial Infections
Not yet recruitingPhase 4
Emerging Indications for Hyperbaric Oxygen Treatment
Post-COVID-19 Condition, Ulcerative Colitis
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
The record lists no contact. Use the official record to reach the sponsor.
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Tissue culture collection in people with Wound Infection Bacterial and Identification, run by Prof. Dr. Bülent M. Ertuğrul at 1 site in Turkey (Türkiye).
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 1 inclusion and 1 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: under way, not looking for participants, as of the sponsor's last update on 9 Jan 2026. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in Turkey (Türkiye). Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
This study is still under way. Results are not available in the source record yet.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Conventional culture vs PERKA-B Method (time frame: 3 months). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT07325786, which also lists 9 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 9 Jan 2026.