Trial reportInternational wound journal2019
Use of prophylactic silicone adhesive dressings for maintaining skin integrity in intensive care unit patients: A randomised controlled trial.
Trial report in International wound journal, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 10 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Dressings and topical agents for preventing pressure ulcers.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024Pooled it
- Prophylactic sacral protective dressings' effect on preventing pressure injury: A meta-analysis.International wound journal · 2022Pooled it
- Silicone adhesive multilayer foam dressings as adjuvant prophylactic therapy to prevent hospital-acquired pressure ulcers: a pragmatic noncommercial multicentre randomized open-label parallel-group medical device trial.The British journal of dermatology · 2021Trial
- Use of prophylactic silicone adhesive dressings for maintaining skin integrity in intensive care unit patients: A randomised controlled trial.International wound journal · 2019Trial
- Prophylactic Sacral Dressing in Prevention of Pressure Injury among ICU Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Indian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine · 2025Review
- Effectiveness of a Single-Use Polyurethane Foam Positioning Pad Compared With Five-Layer Foam Sacral Dressing for Pressure Ulcer Prevention in the Operating Room: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial.Health science reports · 2025Article
- The efficacy of sacral foam dressing in preventing sacral pressure injury: A systematic review and meta-analysis.International wound journal · 2024Article
- International consensus on pressure injury preventative interventions by risk level for critically ill patients: A modified Delphi study.International wound journal · 2020Article
- Corrigendum.International wound journal · 2019Article
- Skin Failure: Results of a Think Tank Hosted by the National Pressure Injury Advisory Panel.Journal of wound, ostomy, and continence nursing : official publication of The Wound, Ostomy and Continence Nurses SocietyArticle
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issuedCorrigendum.2019
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The aims of this randomised controlled study were to determine whether the application of silicone adhesive dressings with standard preventive care would reduce the impairment of skin integrity and to evaluate the subepidermal moisture (SEM) value in anatomical locations to predict impairment of skin integrity. Of the 71 intensive care unit patients enrolled, 35 and 31 were randomly assigned to the intervention and control groups, respectively. The SEM value was measured at each site (the coccyx, sacrum, and both buttocks) repeatedly three times at every dressing change. Collected data were analysed by multivariate linear regression, and least square means analysis was used to compare the SEM value at the sites of pressure injury (PI) and blanching erythema. There were fewer PIs (1 vs 9) and incidences of blanching erythema (5 vs 6) in the intervention group than in the control group (P = 0.006). The SEM value and difference of the SEM value from the initial value was higher in the group with PIs than in the group without PIs (P < 0.0001 and P = 0.001, respectively). There was a statistically significant difference in the incidence of impaired skin integrity between the groups. The SEM value may be an indicator for detecting impairment of skin integrity.
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.