Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25003117›Full record

ArticleBioMed research international2014

Evaluation of human amniotic membrane as a wound dressing for split-thickness skin-graft donor sites.

Denys J Loeffelbein, Nils H Rohleder, Matthias Eddicks, Claudia M Baumann, Mechthild Stoeckelhuber, Klaus-D Wolff, Enken Drecoll, Lars Steinstraesser, Simone Hennerbichler, Marco R Kesting

Open access · hybridAbstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in BioMed research international, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.3field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

27 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 76 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Denys J LoeffelbeinDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Munich University of Technology, Ismaninger Straße 22, 81675 Munich, Germany.
Nils H RohlederDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Munich University of Technology, Ismaninger Straße 22, 81675 Munich, Germany.
Matthias EddicksClinic for Swine, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ludwig-Maximilians-University of Munich, Sonnenstraße 16/A106, 85764 Oberschleissheim, Germany.
Claudia M BaumannDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Munich University of Technology, Ismaninger Straße 22, 81675 Munich, Germany.
Mechthild StoeckelhuberDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Munich University of Technology, Ismaninger Straße 22, 81675 Munich, Germany.
Klaus-D WolffDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Munich University of Technology, Ismaninger Straße 22, 81675 Munich, Germany.
Enken DrecollDepartment of Pathology, Munich University of Technology, Ismaninger Straße 22, 81675 Munich, Germany.
Lars SteinstraesserDepartment of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery, European Medical School at the Carl von Ossietzky University of Oldenburg, Evangelisches Krankenhaus, Steinweg 13-15, 26122 Oldenburg, Germany.
Simone HennerbichlerRed Cross Blood Transfusion Service of Upper Austria/Austrian Cluster for Tissue Regeneration, Krankenhausstrasse 7, 4017 Linz, Austria.
Marco R KestingDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Munich University of Technology, Ismaninger Straße 22, 81675 Munich, Germany.
Austrian Cluster for Tissue Regeneration · ATEvangelisches Krankenhaus Oldenburg · DELudwig-Maximilians-Universität München · DEMunich University of Applied Sciences · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Human amniotic membrane (HAM) has been used as a biomaterial in various surgical procedures and exceeds some qualities of common materials. We evaluated HAM as wound dressing for split-thickness skin-graft (STSG) donor sites in a swine model (Part A) and a clinical trial (Part B). Part A: STSG donor sites in 4 piglets were treated with HAM or a clinically used conventional polyurethane (PU) foil (n = 8 each). Biopsies were taken on days 5, 7, 10, 20, 40, and 60 and investigated immunohistochemically for alpha-smooth muscle actin (αSMA: wound contraction marker), von Willebrand factor (vWF: angiogenesis), Ki-67 (cell proliferation), and laminin (basement membrane integrity). Part B: STSG donor sites in 45 adult patients (16 female/29 male) were treated with HAM covered by PU foam, solely by PU foam, or PU foil/paraffin gauze (n = 15 each). Part A revealed no difference in the rate of wound closure between groups. HAM showed improved esthetic results and inhibitory effects on cicatrization. Angioneogenesis was reduced, and basement membrane formation was accelerated in HAM group. Part B: no difference in re-epithelialization/infection rate was found. HAM caused less ichor exudation and less pruritus. HAM has no relevant advantage over conventional dressings but might be a cost-effective alternative.

Indexed as

BandagesSkin TransplantationWound HealingAmnionAnimalsBasement MembraneCell ProliferationEpitheliumFemaleHumansImmunohistochemistryKi-67 AntigenPainPruritusSus scrofavon Willebrand FactorKi-67 Antigenvon Willebrand Factor

Identifiers

PMID25003117
PMCPMC4070483
OpenAlexW2017832848

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.