ArticleEplasty2013
Comparative study of antibacterial effects and bacterial retentivity of wound dressings.
Article in Eplasty, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Antibacterial and antibiofilm activities of iodinated hydrocarbons against Vibrio parahaemolyticus and Staphylococcus aureus.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Silver-based wound dressings reduce bacterial burden and promote wound healing.International wound journal · 2016Article
- Superior absorption and retention properties of foam-film silver dressing versus other commercially available silver dressing.Biomaterials research · 2016Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesWe are often confused on selecting a suitable wound dressing for the treatment of infected wounds from huge number of available wound dressings. Then, to help clinicians easily select a wound dressing, we compared the antibacterial effects and bacterial retentivity (ie, potency of keeping absorbed bacteria inside wound dressings and preventing them from leaking out) of wound dressings.
methodsFive wound dressings with antibacterial constituents were compared to research antibacterial effects against nonpathogenic Escherichia coli using an in vitro model. The 5 other wound dressings with no antibacterial constituent were compared to research bacterial retentivity. The relative amount of E coli was determined using cell proliferation reagent WST-1 (11644807001, Roche Applied Science, United States) with time.
resultsThe results have shown that the antibacterial effects and bacterial retentivity differed among various wound dressings. Silver ions quickly exerted a very strong antibacterial effect, and hydrofibers had a high potency of bacterial retentivity by gelling the absorbed bacteria in wound dressings.
conclusionsThe present study indicated the differences of antibacterial strength, time of onset and duration of the antibacterial effect, and bacterial retentivity between each wound dressing. Clinicians should use appropriate wound dressings according the wound condition in consideration of the different characteristics of wound dressings. The present results are helpful for clinicians to select appropriate wound dressing.
Identifiers
23372860PMC3556601W1894984778What 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.