Trial reportInternational wound journal2022
A randomised, open-label, parallel-group, multicentre, comparative study to compare the efficacy and safety of Exufiber® with Aquacel® Extra™ dressings in exuding venous and mixed aetiology leg ulcers.
Trial report 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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical performance and cost-effectiveness of a Silicone foam with 3DFit™ technology in chronic wounds compared with standard of care: An open randomised multicentre investigation.International wound journal · 2024Trial
- A randomised, open-label, parallel-group, multicentre, comparative study to compare the efficacy and safety of Exufiber® with Aquacel® Extra™ dressings in exuding venous and mixed aetiology leg ulcers.International wound journal · 2022Trial
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
The performance and safety of Exufiber® gelling fibre and Aquacel® Extra™ Hydrofiber® wound dressings were compared for the management of chronic, exuding leg ulcers. The 6-week study (≤ 24 weeks in a subgroup of subjects) was a randomised, open-label, parallel-group, multicentre, non-inferiority design. Adults (n = 248, 30-97 years of age) were randomised to either Exufiber® or Aquacel® Extra™ dressing. The dressings were applied at baseline and evaluations of wound condition and performance of the dressing were recorded at 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6 weeks. The primary efficacy endpoint was the percentage reduction in wound area at 6 weeks relative to baseline, in the per protocol (PP) population. A median relative reduction of 50% for Exufiber® (n = 100) vs 42% for Aquacel® Extra™ (n = 107) was demonstrated in the PP population (P = 0.093) and confirmed in the intention-to-treat population. As the mean and 95% confidence interval for the difference in relative wound area reduction between groups at 6 weeks was -29.4% (-63.5; 3.2), and the lower limit did not exceed 12%, non-inferiority of Exufiber® was concluded. Both dressings were well tolerated and no safety concerns were identified in both groups. Clinicians' satisfaction with the dressings was higher for Exufiber® than for Aquacel® Extra™ in terms of ease of use and management of exudate, slough, and blood.
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.