ArticleWound repair and regeneration : official publication of the Wound Healing Society [and] the European Tissue Repair Society
Comparative effectiveness of a bilayered living cellular construct and a porcine collagen wound dressing in the treatment of venous leg ulcers.
Article in Wound repair and regeneration : official publication of the Wound Healing Society [and] the European Tissue Repair Society. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 38 citations in OpenAlex.
- A multicentre randomised controlled trial evaluating the efficacy of dehydrated human amnion/chorion membrane (EpiFixInternational wound journal · 2018Trial
- A Prospective Cohort Study of Hard-to-Heal Chronic Foot and Leg Wounds Followed for up to 20 Weeks After Initiation of ReGenerating Tissue Agents (RGTA) Technology as an Add-on to Optimal Local Care.International wound journal · 2026Article
- Real-world data analysis of bilayered living cellular construct and fetal bovine collagen dressing treatment for pressure injuries: a comparative effectiveness study.Journal of comparative effectiveness research · 2024Article
- Article
- Tunable Protein Hydrogels: Present State and Emerging Development.Advances in biochemical engineering/biotechnology · 2021Article
- Use of Native Type I Collagen Matrix Plus Polyhexamethylene Biguanide for Chronic Wound Treatment.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2019Article
- Biopolymer nanofibrils: structure, modeling, preparation, and applications.Progress in polymer science · 2018Article
- Challenges in the Treatment of Chronic Wounds.Advances in wound care · 2015Review
- Inflammatory Immune Responses Trigger Rejection of Allogeneic Fibroblasts Transplanted into Mouse Skin.Cell transplantationArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Using data from a national wound-specific electronic medical record (WoundExpert, Net Health, Pittsburgh, PA), we compared the effectiveness of a bilayered living cellular construct (BLCC) and an acellular porcine small intestine submucosa collagen dressing (SIS) for the treatment of venous leg ulcer. Data from 1,489 patients with 1,801 refractory venous leg ulcers (as defined by failure to have >40% reduction in size in the 4 weeks prior to treatment) with surface areas between 1 and 150 cm(2) in size, treated between July 2009 and July 2012 at 158 wound care facilities across the US were analyzed. Patient baseline demographics and wound characteristics were comparable between groups. Kaplan-Meier-derived estimates of wound closure for BLCC (1,451 wounds) was significantly greater (p = 0.01, log-rank test) by weeks 12 (31% vs. 26%), 24 (50% vs. 41%), and 36 (61% vs. 46%), respectively, compared with SIS (350 wounds). BLCC treatment reduced the median time to wound closure by 44%, achieving healing 19 weeks sooner (24 vs. 43 weeks, p = 0.01, log-rank test). Treatment with BLCC increased the probability of healing by 29% compared with porcine SIS dressing (hazard ratio = 1.29 [95% confidence interval 1.06, 1.56], p = 0.01).
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.