Establishment and translational evaluation of animal models for skin wound healing: a systematic review

Relatively higher-quality human studies compared with other topics in this database, e.g. multiple RCTs or systematic reviews. This does not mean it is standard or approved care.

• Level A · Stronger Clinical Evidence
• Level B · Emerging clinical evidence with positive signals
• Level C · Early human research exploring benefits
• Level D · Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studies
• Emerging · Emerging topic under active research

Abstract (original English)

Background Skin wounds, encompassing acute injuries and chronic refractory ulcers, impose substantial physical and economic burdens globally. While animal models are indispensable for dissecting wound healing pathophysiology and testing therapeutic interventions, the discordance between preclinical findings and clinical outcomes remains a critical challenge. Methods To provide a standardized reference for model selection, we conducted a systematic review in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. We comprehensively searched PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus for studies published between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2025. Inclusion criteria focused on in vivo cutaneous wound models in mice, rats, and rabbits that reported quantitative outcomes (e.g., closure kinetics, histology, molecular markers). Studies lacking separate control groups or sufficient methodological detail were excluded. The methodological quality of included studies was assessed using SYRCLE's risk of bias tool. Results A total of 129 studies met the inclusion criteria and were synthesized. We systematically categorized and evaluated mainstream models: (1) Acute wounds: Rodent incisional/excisional models facilitate high-throughput screening but are limited by contraction-dominant healing, whereas rabbit ear models better approximate human re-epithelialization. (2) Chronic wounds: Streptozotocin (STZ)-induced

Evidence level

Relatively higher-quality human studies compared with other topics in this database, e.g. multiple RCTs or systematic reviews. This does not mean it is standard or approved care.

Browse all related research

Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.