ArticleInternational wound journal2010
Microcrystalline cellulose membrane for re-epithelisation of chronic leg wounds: a prospective open study.
Article in International wound journal, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Triclosan resistance reversion by encapsulation in chitosan-coated-nanocapsule containing α-bisabolol as core: development of wound dressing.International journal of nanomedicine · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Treatment of chronic leg ulcers remains a major health care issue. Although many reports have examined different topical dressings, none have specifically looked at microcrystalline cellulose (MCC). We aimed to evaluate in a prospective, open study the safety and performance of a MCC membrane (Veloderm) in a series of chronic leg wounds of different aetiology. Fifty-five patients participated in this study. The membrane was applied every 5-10 days for 1 month, immediately after surgical debridement. The wound bed was assessed on days 7, 15 and 30 for erythema, pain, exudate level and infection. The wound size change at 30 days was the primary efficacy parameter and any adverse events were collected and analysed. A wound size change of 55% was achieved at the end of follow-up, with an improvement in all the collected parameters, but the erythema, which showed a mild increase. To date, this is the largest experience with a MCC product in chronic wounds. Our study suggests that this treatment may be safe and useful and deserves further investigation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.