ArticleMaterials (Basel, Switzerland)2019
Characteristic Features of Wound Dressings Based on Butyric-Acetic Chitin Copolyesters-Results of Clinical Trials.
Article in Materials (Basel, Switzerland), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluation of Polysaccharide-Peptide Conjugates Containing the RGD Motif for Potential Use in Muscle Tissue Regeneration.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Physicochemical Evaluation of L-Ascorbic Acid andMaterials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
The article presents the results of clinical trials of wound dressings whose main ingredient is butyric-acetic chitin copolyester (BAC 90:10). It is a chitin derivative soluble in typical organic solvents. During the trial, the dressings were used on wounds resulting from venous insufficiency or diabetes. The trial evaluated the safety of use and efficacy of three forms of the dressing including porous membrane (Medisorb R Membrane), porous membrane with silver (Medisorb R Ag), and powder (Medisorb R Powder). The clinical trial had a multi-centre character. Three medical units were engaged in the study. The trial included 36 patients (12 men and 24 women). The mean age of the participants was 65 years of age (age range: 26-96). The choice of dressings was made on the basis of preliminary evaluation of the wound, clinical signs of infection, or risk of infection. Medisorb R Membrane dressing was used in 23 patients, Medisorb R Ag dressing was used in 15 patients, and Medisorb R powder was used in two patients. During the course of the trial, there were 10 control visits planned. The obtained results prove the safety and efficacy of dressings in question. The efficacy of treatment was evaluated as good. In the majority of patients, the ulceration was decreased both on the surface and in depth. The success of the treatment relied not only on the applied dressing, but also the stage of the basic disease, the accompanying diseases, and the age of the patient.
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.