Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29938364›Full record

ArticleJournal of materials science. Materials in medicine2018

Assessment of the cutaneous wound healing efficiency of acidic, neutral and alkaline bacterial cellulose membrane in rat.

Parastoo Pourali, Nasrin Razavianzadeh, Leila Khojasteh, Behrooz Yahyaei

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of materials science. Materials in medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
3.0field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 32 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Bacterial cellulose/phytochemical's extracts biocomposites for potential active wound dressings.Environmental science and pollution research international · 2019
    Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. 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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Parastoo PouraliDepartment of Medical Sciences, Shahrood Branch, Islamic Azad University, Shahrood, Iran.
Nasrin RazavianzadehDepartment of Medical Sciences, Shahrood Branch, Islamic Azad University, Shahrood, Iran.
Leila KhojastehDepartment of Medical Sciences, Shahrood Branch, Islamic Azad University, Shahrood, Iran.
Behrooz YahyaeiDepartment of Medical Sciences, Shahrood Branch, Islamic Azad University, Shahrood, Iran. behroozyahyaei@yahoo.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6495-2911
Islamic Azad University, Shahrood · IR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Recent research was conducted to evaluate the healing efficiency of bacterial cellulose (BC) as a wound dressing in different pHs and its possibility of being a smart wound dressing that can indicate pHs. BC was produced by environmentally isolated bacterial strains. After washing the best achieved BC, it was floated in normal saline with different pHs with phenol red used as a pH indicator. Finally the wound healing effects of the acidic, neutral and alkaline BC membranes were evaluated in rat cutaneous wounds. Results showed that one of the isolates which its partial 16srRNA genome had 95% similarity with Gluconacetobacter intermedius, had the thickest layer. The microscopic and macroscopic evaluations showed that the acidic BC had the best healing activity. Although the color of the films remained unchanged during the experiments because they were transparent and thin, these changes could not be easily seen. This suggests the use of thicker films such as the ones which are cross linked with some materials (e.g., sterile gauze). In conclusion the pH can affect the healing ability of natural BC and acidic pH had the best wound healing efficiency. In future it is better to use the acidic BC instead of natural one for different wound healing purposes.

Indexed as

BandagesWound HealingAnimalsBiocompatible MaterialsCelluloseCross-Linking ReagentsFemaleGluconacetobacterHydrogen-Ion ConcentrationMaterials TestingRatsRats, WistarRNA, BacterialRNA, Ribosomal, 16SSkinBiocompatible MaterialsCelluloseCross-Linking ReagentsRNA, BacterialRNA, Ribosomal, 16S

Identifiers

PMID29938364
OpenAlexW2811116705

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.