Wound healing is a multi-factorial response to tissue injury, aiming to restore tissue continuity. Numerous recent experimental and some clinical studies, clearly indicate that probiotics applied topically promote the wound healing process. However, the precise mechanism by which they contribute to healing is not yet clear. Each strain appears to exert a distinctive, even multi-factorial action on different phases of the healing process. Given that a multi-probiotic formula exerts better results than a single strain, the pharmaceutical industry has embarked on a race for the production of a formulation containing a combination of probiotics, capable of playing a role in all the phases of the healing process. Hence, the object of this review is to describe what is known to date of the distinctive mechanisms of each of the most studied probiotic strains in order to further facilitate research towards the development of combinations of strains and doses, covering the whole spectrum of healing. Eleven probiotic species have been analyzed, the only criterion of inclusion being a minimum of two published research articles.

: Background: Since the consensus of ISAPP on the definition of the term “postbiotic” there has been an enthusiasm for publications, in review form - their number being disproportionate to the primary research. The aim of this bibliometry is to analyze the perspectives of the first and the last authors of such reviews; and, specifically, to note the connection of these authors with the broader subject of microbiome and probiotics. Methods: Search of the PubMed database for review articles on post-biotics, published between November 2021 and December 2023. Results: Analysis was performed on 76 review articles, the number corresponding to 2.9 reviews per month. Poland, China, Italy, Argentina and Iran had the maximum productivity among the 30 countries involved; 39 articles were published in 12 high-impact journals, while 31 were in journals with an IF between 5 and 5.9. The authors were mainly affiliated to universities with specialization in both basic research and technology, as well as food science. Eighteen first authors and six last authors had zero previous publications on the related topic of the microbiome and probiotics; and another 7 last authors had only one publication each. There were, however, 5 authors with 142, 92, 76, 71 and 41 related publications. Conclusions: It is clear that a part of this productivity is written by first authors with no previous engagement with related research and lacking colleagues or mentors involved with microbiome/probiotics research to support them as senior authors.