ArticleInternational wound journal2018
Evaluation of three experimental in vitro models for the assessment of the mechanical cleansing efficacy of wound irrigation solutions.
Article in International wound journal, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Article
- 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 · 2025Review
- Local Gentamicin Fixation with Sprayed Fibrin-An In Vivo Animal Study Reveals New Options to Treat Soft Tissue Infections.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Therapeutic strategies for chronic wound infection.Chinese journal of traumatology = Zhonghua chuang shang za zhi · 2022Review
- Local fixation of antibiotics with fibrin spray on soft tissues: experimental study on the relevance of the application techniques.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2020Article
- A Novel In Vitro Scrubber Model for Evaluating Wound Cleansing on Biofilms.Wound repair and regeneration : official publication of the Wound Healing Society [and] the European Tissue Repair SocietyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to compare different wound-rinsing solutions to determine differences in the efficiency and to evaluate three different in vitro models for wound cleansing. Different wound-rinsing solutions (physiological saline solution, ringer lactate solution for wound irrigation, water and a solution containing polihexanide and the surfactant undecylenamidopropyl-betain) were applied on standardised test models (one- and three-chamber model, flow-cell method and a biofilm model), each challenged with three different standardised wound test soils. In the one-chamber model saline showed a better effect on decontaminating proteins than the ringer lactate solution. In the flow-cell method, water performed better than physiological saline solution, whereas ringer lactate solution demonstrated the lowest cleansing effect. No obvious superiority between the two electrolyte-containing solutions was detectable in the biofilm model. Unfortunately, it was not possible to assess the protein decontamination qualities of the surfactant-containing solution because of the interference with the protein measurement. The flow-cell method was able to detect differences between different rinse solutions because it works at constant flow mechanics, imitating a wound-rinsing procedure. The three-chamber and the less-pronounced modified one-chamber method as well as the biofilm model had generated inhomogeneous results.
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.