ArticleInternational wound journal2020
In vitro evaluation of the hyaluronic acid/alginate composite powder for topical haemostasis and wound healing.
Article in International wound journal, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 30 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comprehensive Assessment of Collagen/Sodium Alginate-Based Sponges as Hemostatic Dressings.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- State of the art, trends, hotspots, and prospects of injection materials for controlling bleeding.International wound journal · 2024Review
- Alginate Bioconjugate and Graphene Oxide in Multifunctional Hydrogels for Versatile Biomedical Applications.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- In vitro evaluation of the hyaluronic acid/alginate composite powder for topical haemostasis and wound healing.International wound journal · 2020Article
- Hyaluronic acid in Dentoalveolar regeneration: Biological rationale and clinical applications.Journal of oral biology and craniofacial researchArticle
- Hyaluronic acid: Hope or hype in periodontics - A narrative review.Journal of Indian Society of PeriodontologyReview
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 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
The use of haemostatic agents can provide life-saving treatment for patients who suffer from massive bleeding in both prehospital and intraoperative conditions. However, there are still urgent demands for novel haemostatic materials that exhibit better haemostatic activity, biocompatibility, and biodegradability than existing products. In the present study, we aim to evaluate the feasibility of new wound dressing, RapidClot, for treating uncontrolled haemorrhage through a series of in vitro assessments to determine the swelling ratio, clotting time, enzymatic degradation, haemolytic activity, cytotoxicity, cell proliferation, and migration. The results indicated that the RapidClot revealed better water adsorption capacity and shorter blood clotting time (132.7 seconds) than two commercially available haemostatic agents Celox (378.7 seconds) and WoundSeal (705.3 seconds). Additionally, the RapidClot dressing exhibited a similar level of degradability in the presence of hyaluronidase and lysozyme as that of Celox, whereas negligible degradation of WoundSeal was obtained. Although both Celox and RapidClot revealed a similar level in cell viability (above than 90%) against NIH/3 T3 fibroblasts, improved cell proliferation and migration could be obtained in RapidClot. Taking together, our results demonstrated that RapidClot could possess a great potential for serving as an efficient healing dressing with haemorrhage control ability.
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.