ArticleInternational wound journal2022
A clinical comparison of pure knitted silk and a complex synthetic skin substitute for the treatment of partial thickness burns.
Article in International wound journal, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Can Pure Silk Compete with the Established Mepilex AgEuropean burn journal · 2025Article
- Evaluation of Scar Quality after Treatment of Superficial Burns with DressilkJournal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
- Impact of silk hydrogel secondary structure on hydrogel formation, silk leaching and in vitro response.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- A clinical comparison of pure knitted silk and a complex synthetic skin substitute for the treatment of partial thickness burns.International wound journal · 2022Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Currently, many dressings are commercially available for the treatment of burn wounds. Some of these wound dressings remain on the wound, prevent painful dressing changes, and reduce tissue scarring. Nevertheless, still a wound dressing that is cost-effective, produces good wound healing properties, and has a high patient satisfaction is needed. Standard care of superficial burn wounds differs between burn centres. This study aimed to determine a dressing with easy appliance, accurate pain control, favourable outcome, and cost-effectiveness. Therefore, we compared the widely used but expensive Suprathel with the rather new but much cheaper Dressilk in the clinical setting. In a prospective clinical study, the healing of partial thickness burn wounds after simultaneous treatment with Suprathel and Dressilk was examined in 20 patients intra-individually. During wound healing, pain, infection, exudation, and bleeding were evaluated. A subjective scar evaluation was performed using the Patient and Observer Scar Scale. Both dressings were easy to apply, remained on the wound in place, and were gradually cut back as reepithelisation proceeded and showed similar times to wound closure. Dressing changes were not necessary, and neither infections nor bleeding was detected. Overall exudation and pain were highest in the beginning but declined during the wound-healing phase without significant differences. In the follow-up scar evaluation after 12 months, patients reported overall high satisfaction. Overall, the modern dressings Suprathel and Dressilk (solely made out of pure silk) led to safe wound healing without infection and rapidly reduced pain. There was no need for dressing changes, and they had similar clinical outcomes in scar evaluation. Therefore, both dressings seem to be ideal for the treatment of superficial burns. Because acquisition costs remain one of the main factors in the treatment of burns, Dressilk, which is ~20 times cheaper than Suprathel, remains a good option for the treatment of partial thickness burns.
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.