ArticleInternational wound journal2023
Differences in prophylactic performance across wound dressing types used to protect from device-related pressure ulcers caused by a continuous positive airway pressure mask.
Article in International wound journal, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 3 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Prevention of nasal injury in preterm infants during positive pressure ventilation: a systematic review of interface and dressing selection.BMC pediatrics · 2025Pooled it
- Prophylactic dressings for preventing nasal pressure ulcer in premature newborns: an effectiveness review.Revista da Escola de Enfermagem da U S P · 2025Pooled it
- AARC Clinical Practice Guideline: Patient-Ventilator Assessment.Respiratory care · 2024Guideline
- The Application Effect of Modified Pressure-Reducing Fixation Protective Nasal Strip in the Nursing Care of Patients Receiving High-Flow Nasal Cannula Therapy.Saudi medical journal · 2026Trial
- Effect of a self-developed fixation device on preventing endotracheal intubation-related pressure injury: a randomised controlled trial.Critical care (London, England) · 2024Trial
- Finite element modeling of inter-individual variation in soft tissue mechanical response to localized pressure.Biomechanics and modeling in mechanobiology · 2026Article
- The frictional energy absorber effectiveness and its impact on the pressure ulcer prevention performance of multilayer dressings.International wound journal · 2024Review
- Electrospun Antimicrobial Drug Delivery Systems and Hydrogels Used for Wound Dressings.Pharmaceutics · 2024Review
- Mechanical and contact characteristics of foam materials within wound dressings: Theoretical and practical considerations in treatment.International wound journal · 2023Article
- Respiratory Care Management of COPD Exacerbations.Respiratory care · 2023Article
- Differences in prophylactic performance across wound dressing types used to protect from device-related pressure ulcers caused by a continuous positive airway pressure mask.International wound journal · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Prolonged use of continuous positive airway pressure masks, as often required for non-invasive ventilation, involves a risk for facial tissue breakdown due to the sustained deformations caused by tightening of the stiff mask surfaces to the head and the moist environment. The risk of developing mask-related facial injuries can be reduced through suitable cushioning materials placed at the skin-mask interfaces to spread the localised contact forces and disperse the surface and internal tissue stresses. Using an integrated experimental-computational approach, we compared the biomechanical protective performance of three popular foam-based wound dressings to that of a market-lead hydrocolloid dressing when applied to protect the facial skin under a mask. We measured the compressive stiffness properties of the four commercial dressing types in dry and moist conditions, and then fed those to an anatomically realistic finite element model of an adult male head, with an applied simulated mask. Through this process, we calculated the protective efficacy index of each dressing type, indicating the relative contribution of the specified dressing to alleviating facial soft tissue loads with respect to the no-dressing case. The foam-based dressings generally performed substantially better than the hydrocolloid, but foam dressings were also demonstrated to vary by their protective performance.
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.