Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27004423›Full record

ArticleInternational wound journal2017

Clinical safety and effectiveness evaluation of a new antimicrobial wound dressing designed to manage exudate, infection and biofilm.

Daniel G Metcalf, David Parsons, Philip G Bowler

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International wound journal, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Effects of topical Turkish propolis on burn wound healing in an experimental burn model.Ulusal travma ve acil cerrahi dergisi = Turkish journal of trauma & emergency surgery : TJTES · 2026
    Article
  2. Systematics, diagnosis and treatment of wound infections in chronic wounds: A position paper from WundDACH.Journal der Deutschen Dermatologischen Gesellschaft = Journal of the German Society of Dermatology : JDDG · 2025
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
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

3 authors.

Daniel G MetcalfScience and Technology, ConvaTec Ltd., Global Development Centre, Deeside, UK.
David ParsonsScience and Technology, ConvaTec Ltd., Global Development Centre, Deeside, UK.
Philip G BowlerScience and Technology, ConvaTec Ltd., Global Development Centre, Deeside, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The objective of this work was to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of a next-generation antimicrobial wound dressing (NGAD; AQUACEL

Indexed as

BandagesAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAnti-Infective AgentsBiofilmsCarboxymethylcellulose SodiumExudates and TransudatesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedSilverTreatment OutcomeUnited KingdomAnti-Infective AgentsCarboxymethylcellulose SodiumSilverAQUACEL® Ag+ Extra™BiofilmExudateInfectionSafety

Identifiers

PMID27004423
PMCPMC7949869

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.